Get your shovels ready: it's time to bury old iMacs

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
That’s normal. After five years past sale Apple products go to vintage status. Then following another two years they move to obsolete. looks to me like they extended support already for longer than they normally do.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,795
The irony in all of these megacorps that claim to care about the environment and be "green" while forcing obsolescence without any alternatives.
At least offer a decade of OS security patches before doing so - the 2014 model was barely supported for eight years.

From the article:
If Apple made their products user-repairable - in the same way PC users can upgrade parts of their machines when new components are needed - we would see wider support for older technologies.

Gee, it's almost like proprietary equipment and corporatist practices are a bad thing for the environment, and humanity in general.
Linux and BSD can breath new life into those systems, though probably only on the secondary markets.

So glad I'm still rocking a October 2005 iMac that is fully serviceable with non-proprietary parts.
Maybe Apple was better under Steve Jobs... what has the world come to when that thought pops in. :eek:
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,445
The irony in all of these megacorps that claim to care about the environment and be "green" while forcing obsolescence without any alternatives.
Hey, aluminum supports help keep landfills more organized.
 

Randall Stephens

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,583

scottypippin

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 28, 2022
Messages
69
What's an iMac?
1667479755974.png

src: https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/yfr9r9/mcdonalds_but_sells_apple_products/
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,008
The irony in all of these megacorps that claim to care about the environment and be "green" while forcing obsolescence without any alternatives.
At least offer a decade of OS security patches before doing so - the 2014 model was barely supported for eight years.

From the article:


Gee, it's almost like proprietary equipment and corporatist practices are a bad thing for the environment, and humanity in general.
Linux and BSD can breath new life into those systems, though probably only on the secondary markets.

So glad I'm still rocking a October 2005 iMac that is fully serviceable with non-proprietary parts.
Maybe Apple was better under Steve Jobs... what has the world come to when that thought pops in. :eek:
Folks don't seem to completely understand what Apple's definition of "obsolete" means.

It doesn't mean that a product stops working, that there will never be software updates, or that there will be no way to fix it if it breaks. It only means that Apple and authorized shops will no longer provide official repairs, and can't order parts. And I'm not sure eight-plus years is unreasonable (10 years for laptop batteries). Imagine if an eight-year-old Dell desktop's mainboard failed; would you scream at Dell because it didn't have stocks of that mainboard hanging around just in case? Probably not; it's a lot to ask a device maker to keep parts for a long time, not to mention for technicians to know how to repair that many products.

And that 2005 iMac might be more serviceable, but "non-proprietary?" Really? I didn't know ASUS and Gigabyte sold mainboards for iMac G5s, or that you could just swap in a standard power supply you found on Newegg. For that matter, you seem to have forgotten that Apple was making lots of sealed-in products while Jobs was around (including the first aluminum iMacs). Apple certainly trended toward reduced accessibility until very recently, but the notion that the iMac G5 was a tinkerer's paradise is pretty silly.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,578
The irony in all of these megacorps that claim to care about the environment and be "green" while forcing obsolescence without any alternatives.
At least offer a decade of OS security patches before doing so - the 2014 model was barely supported for eight years.

From the article:


Gee, it's almost like proprietary equipment and corporatist practices are a bad thing for the environment, and humanity in general.
Linux and BSD can breath new life into those systems, though probably only on the secondary markets.

So glad I'm still rocking a October 2005 iMac that is fully serviceable with non-proprietary parts.
Maybe Apple was better under Steve Jobs... what has the world come to when that thought pops in. :eek:
Like how auto manufacturers stop making parts after 7 years so you're forced to either pull used parts or use garbage aftermarket.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Welp, time to risk flame posts...
The irony in all of these megacorps that claim to care about the environment and be "green" while forcing obsolescence without any alternatives.
At least offer a decade of OS security patches before doing so - the 2014 model was barely supported for eight years.
You can continue using the machine(s). Nothing will prevent users from doing so.
Also Apple offers free recycling for any and all of its products. If this ends up in landfills, then that's the fault of bad users. Not the fault of Apple, who again would recycle any and all hardware for free.
From the article:
Quote within a quote doesn't work, but I'll say kinda what Aurelius above said, this isn't any different than any 8 year old laptop or 8 year old motherboard not being supported. Can you still buy brand new 8 year old Gigabyte boards? There is no PC support for hardware that many years on either. Not sure why this is an "Apple problem". Proprietary or not there isn't really a lot of options.
There are a few small companies that make niche replacement parts for old Macs. However there isn't really a market for any of this stuff. Want to know why? Because for most people, even non-techs, 8 years on a machine is well past the usable date for any given piece of hardware. 10 years+ and you're feeling severe pain.
While every year we go on the rate of increased computing power is diminishing (Moore's law is dead and all that), believe me when I say, not a lot of those machines will be computers that anyone will want to use. Intel didn't even get past 4 cores in consumer level hardware until 2017. There is a good chunk of those machines that are running painfully outdated 2 core machines with hyper-threading like Intel Core i5-4260U and Intel integrated 5000 graphics.
Even top spec'ed 27" models are limited by graphics cards that topped out at 2GB of RAM (and again, quad core processors).
While you could make a case for having user replaceable video cards and CPUs, even the best machines you could make from these nearly decade old parts is still not a computer that anyone would really want to use. Apple did actually use MXM cards in iMacs up until 2011 (I own one). Turns out no one replaces the cards anyway and it was an additional expense. And MXM cards were/are absurdly expensive on the second hand market or even the first party market for no real upside.
Gee, it's almost like proprietary equipment and corporatist practices are a bad thing for the environment, and humanity in general.
Linux and BSD can breath new life into those systems, though probably only on the secondary markets.
Again, only nerds will want to do this. There are NO general hardware users that care about using 8 year old machines (not literally, obviously you care, but I don't think you recognize what a minority you are, a hyper-minority). Even my Dad who doesn't know the difference between macOS, Linux, and Windows, beyond that "they are different", hates cellphones, and still reads the newspaper daily has never had a computer for more than 6-7 years. And he was always self-employed. Meaning no computer was ever given to him. Even he still has always had machines newer than that. In terms of generalist users, maybe Grandma.

You're talking about a use case for .001% of hardware, at best. You can pick this as a hill to die on, but even on these forums, no one cares. There is a sub-forum for vintage machines and people like to brag every so-often that they have a Sandy Bridge machine still running, but no one is using that as their primary computer and nor would they want to. Again, technically you could do the same things with Mac hardware. If you want to run Windows 98 on your machine from 2002, you can. Similarly you can continue running OS9 on your G4 you have lying around. I honestly don't see that much difference. And again, I'd be just as happy if the machine was given to Apple to be recycled.
So glad I'm still rocking a October 2005 iMac that is fully serviceable with non-proprietary parts.
Maybe Apple was better under Steve Jobs... what has the world come to when that thought pops in. :eek:
Again, I feel like this is mostly just you and ultra nerds. Even if it had completely user replaceable everything there is NO computer from 2005 that I would want to use. Heck, there is barely machines from 5 years ago that I would want to use save maybe some workstation hardware.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,548
You can continue using the machine(s). Nothing will prevent users from doing so.
Also Apple offers free recycling for any and all of its products. If this ends up in landfills, then that's the fault of bad users. Not the fault of Apple, who again would recycle any and all hardware for free.
Recycling and then making you buy a new one isn't doing anything for the environment. If Apple simply supported this old hardware with their Mac OSX, then these devices wouldn't need to end up being melted down into Apple monitor stands. I can and have installed Linux Mint on even older Macs with great success. Roblox with Steam and all working better than Mac OSX. This is why you don't trust the OEM with software because they can and will (Apple) use it to force you to upgrade. I guarantee you most people wouldn't know the difference between a 2013 Mac vs a 2022 Mac for their daily tasks. Until they get a message that they need to upgrade.
Not sure why this is an "Apple problem". Proprietary or not there isn't really a lot of options.
It's not an Apple problem, but Apple is the mega corp who hides money to avoiding paying taxes that can afford to support their older hardware. You'd think Apple would be the exception, not part of the norm.
Again, only nerds will want to do this.
According to Big Bang theory, nerds are cool now.
but no one is using that as their primary computer and nor would they want to.
Most of the people I deal with daily drive that kind of hardware. If it isn't due to familiarity, then it's due to cost. You have no idea how many Core2Duo's I fix and upgrade.

Again, I feel like this is mostly just you and ultra nerds. Even if it had completely user replaceable everything there is NO computer from 2005 that I would want to use. Heck, there is barely machines from 5 years ago that I would want to use save maybe some workstation hardware.
Your opinion is not the world. Trust me. Also, what's this hate you have against nerds? May I remind you're posting on a niche forum that their main webpage was closed down too many years ago. What do you think that makes you?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Recycling and then making you buy a new one isn't doing anything for the environment. If Apple simply supported this old hardware with their Mac OSX, then these devices wouldn't need to end up being melted down into Apple monitor stands.
And what am I supposed to do with my old machines from Dell or HP? You say it does nothing for the environment, so you're cool with mercury from displays and PCBs as well as lithium batteries just getting dumped into a landfill? There is either a huge amount of ignorance here or willful blindness. E-waste is a monumentally huge problem, a global one. Last I checked actually recycling things is a massive step up from landfill. Good to know that you're not an environmentalist though for future discussions and/or you have no idea about any environmentally related topics.
You say that Apple isn't environmentally friendly: I dare you to show me any major PC vendor with a better environmental scorecard. I'll give you a head-start: you won't find one. But I'll wait. Because turns out PC's go obsolete too. Half the point that you're missing is that NO USER uses 8 year old machines on this forum as their main computer. Not just Apple ones.
So PC heads are out here buying a new machine every 5 years or so and not recycling? That's somehow better to you? What do you think is happening to all those fleet laptops? There is no argument you can present here that paints the PC side in a good light. If the users don't pay money on the PC side to recycle it, it ends up in the trash. At least Apple is stopping that cycle and keeping their side of the street clean.
I can and have installed Linux Mint on even older Macs with great success.
So, let them do that. Except they won't. Because it's not really me you're fighting against. It is users that won't and don't care. And as you state below, don't know the difference. This is the most esoteric user base of all time if they are educated enough to run Linux Mint on old Mac's but too ignorant to know the difference between an 8 year old machine and a new one. And an even more esoteric user base if that machines is their main computer that they're doing all of their most important computing tasks on.
Roblox with Steam and all working better than Mac OSX. This is why you don't trust the OEM with software because they can and will (Apple) use it to force you to upgrade.
For the 400th time, nothing is forcing them to stop using their machines. Just like Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to stop using Windows 7. And I would argue that Microsoft is probably being way more annoying about upgrading too, up to attempting to force users to upgrade through Windows update which could nuke your Windows install. But that's off-topic even if it's a 1:1 example.
I guarantee you most people wouldn't know the difference between a 2013 Mac vs a 2022 Mac for their daily tasks. Until they get a message that they need to upgrade.
According to you, most people game and the reason for picking any system is gaming. Also according to you, this user base also want to run Linux on old versions of Macs. Apparently also according to you people can't tell the difference between a dual core i5 and an M1.
In terms of hardware, one of which will do all of it's "basic computing tasks" instantly with instant on, no loading times for anything, significantly upgraded webcams and microphones, better displays, and a totally different design. While the other has a good chance of still running rotational hard drives (in all 21" models) and a fusion drive at best for 27" ones, 512MB of RAM on their graphics card (relevant for watching even content), and will likely have slow downs especially on all machines that didn't/don't have upgraded RAM (which could be as low as 4GB).
If they are that level of ignorant again, nothing is forcing them to upgrade. There is probably no computing task that that user is doing that will make a difference whether they're running a new version of macOS or not or with new hardware or not because apparently this group doesn't notice "speed" at all.
It's not an Apple problem, but Apple is the mega corp who hides money to avoiding paying taxes that can afford to support their older hardware. You'd think Apple would be the exception, not part of the norm.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. Go to the soapbox.
According to Big Bang theory, nerds are cool now.
Missing the forest for the trees.
Most of the people I deal with daily drive that kind of hardware. If it isn't due to familiarity, then it's due to cost. You have no idea how many Core2Duo's I fix and upgrade.
Great? So let them continue to use that hardware.
Your opinion is not the world.
Neither is yours. Here, I'll play a game with you: what percentage of 2013 iMac's would you say are still in use versus their original amount sold? Any number you come up with isn't going to be favorable to your position. I'm going to go with <5%.
Most of what I'm presenting is facts. But I'll gladly welcome numbers to the contrary showing just how many 8 and 9 year old iMacs are still being used, how unimportant recycling is, the intelligence of users to install Linux Mint but don't know the difference between new and old hardware, etc.
Trust me. Also, what's this hate you have against nerds? May I remind you're posting on a niche forum that their main webpage was closed down too many years ago. What do you think that makes you?
Again, you've monumentally missed the point. The point is no one is using those old machines other than a hyper minority. You may give that hyper minority any name you want. Go ahead DNX, choose the name for this hyper minority, it's not really relevant. Half of your points are unrelated tangents and not the topic at hand, which is about par for the course.

The bottom line is you want support for an incredibly small amount of machines in a hardware base that either doesn't want support or need it. Because they're not using these machines for current computing tasks, too ignorant to know the difference, or simply want to keep old hardware sitting on a shrine somewhere as a "vintage machine" that they think is cool.
All of those user bases can continue to do whatever they want to do with their old hardware. Apple doesn't have a want or need or desire to support any of them. They're perfectly happy as they are. And they can happily install Linux mint anyway since they're educated enough to do so and apparently that is a more than viable solution for them.

Apple has forced no one to do anything with their old hardware. If you want to keep it forever and use it just like it is then you are free to do that. No point you've made addresses that. This is a massive fake news post. No one has to bury anything they don't want. Apple would prefer it's not in the landfill (which apparently you don't care about) and recycled properly - but users are free to do what they choose. Is that not clear to you?
 
Last edited:

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
3,418
You say it does nothing for the environment, so you're cool with

Dude, you're assuming facts not in evidence. He said "recycling your old unit and then forcing you to buy a new one doesn't help the environment." His very next words imply "compared to supporting the old unit longer." And as far as that goes, he's right. Recycling isn't 100%, and "not getting a new machine" has less impact on the environment than "replacing a machine."
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Dude, you're assuming facts not in evidence. He said "recycling your old unit and then forcing you to buy a new one doesn't help the environment." His very next words imply "compared to supporting the old unit longer." And as far as that goes, he's right. Recycling isn't 100%, and "not getting a new machine" has less impact on the environment than "replacing a machine."
Also covered in what I said next. A majority of users do not use machines for 8 years. EOL happens no matter what and whether you’re on PC or Mac for most that’s a 5-6 year long process. But please show me how many users are using a 9 year old 2013 iMac that are getting severely affected by this. DNX also went on a dumb tangent saying that Apple recycles machines just to build monitor stands. So if you want to complain about facts not in evidence, as if PC's somehow don't use raw materials or whatever his absurd point is (and as if PCB's and LCD screens could somehow become aluminum), then hold him to the same standard. Or the simple fact that 90% of computer hardware is coming from PC's and then therefore a disproportionate amount of eWaste is coming from EOL PC's - but he's made it clear that he's good with pollution, so long as it's not Mac pollution and as you note that the pollution is on his arbitrary time table and not anyone else's.

Secondly for the 401st time if people want to continue to use these machines for their computing tasks they are free to do so. So if they don’t opt to upgrade or do anything they can do that. To my point I think you’re going to find that’s an extreme minority. As in less than a fraction of a percent. And certainly no businesses (which deploy every 3 years) or anyone doing any modern computing task. (EDIT: And doing a bit of snooping, spending time looking up Catalina and Big Sur, it's likely at least the 2014 iMac's will continue to be supported via security updates under Big Sur, and the 2013's under Catalina possibly as well. This vintage status means no more OS upgrades and no more hardware service. However the lack of major OS upgrades was reached at Vintage status 2 years ago.)
If you're some weird power user like Red Falcon that wants to continue using this obsolete hardware and also wants software updates you can install Windows, Linux, or OpenCore for those that want to continue running macOS.

This entire argument is predicated on the idea of what is "long enough" to support something for. Bottom line it's a line in the sand, and both of you are complaining about EOL on a machine that you never bought when it was new, used, never would buy or use new and certainly not for 8 years as your primary computing device.
And it's super annoying that Apple is held to your absurd standard. How long should they support an extreme minority of users? If they supported machines for 12 years would you be happy then, or spend just as much time complaining at the end of that 12 years for machines you don't even use or support with your own money?
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,548
You say it does nothing for the environment, so you're cool with mercury from displays and PCBs as well as lithium batteries just getting dumped into a landfill? There is either a huge amount of ignorance here or willful blindness.
I'm going to make many factual statements you won't like. Everyone is big on buying the better product for the environment when in reality you shouldn't be buying another product unless you absolutely need to. Trashing a working 2013 Mac to buy a new Mac to basically do the same tasks is worse than not buying a new product. Even if you carefully recycle the old Mac, you're still generating more CO2 and other byproducts than you would if you didn't.

The solution is to make products repairable, upgrade-able, and modular. Apple is doing none of that and is probably the worst offender. They don't because it isn't nearly as profitable.

So, let them do that. Except they won't. Because it's not really me you're fighting against. It is users that won't and don't care. And as you state below, don't know the difference. This is the most esoteric user base of all time if they are educated enough to run Linux Mint on old Mac's but too ignorant to know the difference between an 8 year old machine and a new one. And an even more esoteric user base if that machines is their main computer that they're doing all of their most important computing tasks on.
If the Linux community can support older Macs for free, what does that say about Apple who's worth far too much?
For the 400th time, nothing is forcing them to stop using their machines. Just like Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to stop using Windows 7.
You wanna use a machine that stops getting security updates? Also, lots of software including web browsers will refuse to work with older OS's. Eventually you gotta upgrade your software or you can't use certain websites.

According to you, most people game and the reason for picking any system is gaming. Also according to you, this user base also want to run Linux on old versions of Macs. Apparently also according to you people can't tell the difference between a dual core i5 and an M1.
See, you can learn.
In terms of hardware, one of which will do all of it's "basic computing tasks" instantly with instant on, no loading times for anything, significantly upgraded webcams and microphones, better displays, and a totally different design.
The Macbook Air 2012 I have was upgraded to Linux Mint and has a 256 SSD. Apple still sells M2 Macbooks with SSD's. Made the UI look like Mac OS X, including the startup animation and sounds. Gave it to my niece so she can do school work, youtube, roblox, and minecraft.
While the other has a good chance of still running rotational hard drives (in all 21" models) and a fusion drive at best for 27" ones, 512MB of RAM on their graphics card (relevant for watching even content), and will likely have slow downs especially on all machines that didn't/don't have upgraded RAM (which could be as low as 4GB).
If they are that level of ignorant again, nothing is forcing them to upgrade. There is probably no computing task that that user is doing that will make a difference whether they're running a new version of macOS or not or with new hardware or not because apparently this group doesn't notice "speed" at all.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Go to the soapbox.
Apple is one of the most profitable companiess in the world, so they can afford to make better designs that allow for upgrade-ablety and repairs. When my desktop PC breaks I don't replace it I just replace the broken part. The same can't be said about Apple products.
Missing the forest for the trees.
You're just a jerk who's throwing stones in glass houses.
Apple has forced no one to do anything with their old hardware.
Get Apple to open source their entire Mac OSX and let the community support their older hardware. I guarantee you people would do it. Apple won't because money. My point is that lack of software support for older Macs is a financial decision, and not a environmentally friendly one too.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,795
Good to know that you're not an environmentalist though for future discussions and/or you have no idea about any environmentally related topics.
Insults and assumptions aren't necessary for this conversation, which you yourself started.
When someone else has a different opinion from yourself, you don't need to label and categorize them after one post, so please don't.

Half the point that you're missing is that NO USER uses 8 year old machines on this forum as their main computer. Not just Apple ones.
If you would bother to look at individuals' sigs on here you might realize how wrong you are on that one.
The HP t620 thin client I use as one of my mains was released around 2013, and there are quite a few individuals rocking Sandy Bridge and Nehalem systems on here as well, which are from the early 2010s and late 2000s as their mains, respectively.

Because it's not really me you're fighting against.
No, but it is us that you yourself are fighting against, unnecessarily I might add.

It is users that won't and don't care. And as you state below, don't know the difference. This is the most esoteric user base of all time if they are educated enough to run Linux Mint on old Mac's but too ignorant to know the difference between an 8 year old machine and a new one. And an even more esoteric user base if that machines is their main computer that they're doing all of their most important computing tasks on.
"an even more esoteric user base" - do you even know what forum you are posting on???
Even if we aren't talking about us, the user base for this is far more than a decimal of a percentage point as you claimed.

Just like Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to stop using Windows 7. And I would argue that Microsoft is probably being way more annoying about upgrading too, up to attempting to force users to upgrade through Windows update which could nuke your Windows install. But that's off-topic even if it's a 1:1 example.
That is not 1:1.
There is a difference between an operating system going EOL and a hardware platform/model going EOL and losing support for currently-supported operating systems.

According to you, most people game and the reason for picking any system is gaming.
DukenukemX never stated that, and you are putting words into their mouth.
Seeing a trend here - you need to get over yourself when people don't immediately 100% agree with you, and acting like a technocrat fascist isn't appreciated on here, or anywhere for that matter.

Also according to you, this user base also want to run Linux on old versions of Macs. Apparently also according to you people can't tell the difference between a dual core i5 and an M1.
Many average non-power users cannot tell the difference for daily tasks.
Normally the biggest difference would be in an older system with a HDD vs a newer one with a SSD, but if the older one has a SSD not much difference will be seen as a daily driver for average tasks or light-productivity.

In terms of hardware, one of which will do all of it's "basic computing tasks" instantly with instant on, no loading times for anything, significantly upgraded webcams and microphones, better displays, and a totally different design. While the other has a good chance of still running rotational hard drives (in all 21" models) and a fusion drive at best for 27" ones, 512MB of RAM on their graphics card (relevant for watching even content), and will likely have slow downs especially on all machines that didn't/don't have upgraded RAM (which could be as low as 4GB).
Essentially what I just wrote, agreed with the first part.
Second part, though, not so much - 1080p YouTube and streaming videos do not require 512MB of VRAM, in fact it will use much less for average desktop and video tasks.

Even light 3D or 2D gaming can easily be done at 1080p with only 512MB VRAM, depending on the game obviously.
4K and 5K resolutions will require more than 512MB VRAM for the above mentioned content, and 2GB is normally a decent amount for such things, even on older systems.

If they are that level of ignorant again, nothing is forcing them to upgrade. There is probably no computing task that that user is doing that will make a difference whether they're running a new version of macOS or not or with new hardware or not because apparently this group doesn't notice "speed" at all.
Which goes to the point, why upgrade needlessly unless they are forced to by said megacorps artificially ending support for said platforms.
The Opencore Legacy Patcher mentioned by Randall Stephens looks like a fantastic workaround, though, so much thanks to them for mentioning that - learned something new! (y)

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Go to the soapbox.
What DukenukemX mentioned is absolutely relevant to the discussion.
You aren't a mod, and again, acting like a technocrat fascist is absolutely not appreciated by anyone.

Missing the forest for the trees.
Kettle meet pot.

Neither is yours. Here, I'll play a game with you: what percentage of 2013 iMac's would you say are still in use versus their original amount sold? Any number you come up with isn't going to be favorable to your position. I'm going to go with <5%.
You would be surprised at how much higher that percentage is, especially on the secondary and used markets.
Making a lot of assumptions without citing any sources, but if you do I will be more than happy to concede if you actually prove us wrong with facts and not personal opinions like you are doing now.

Most of what I'm presenting is facts.
Not hardly.

But I'll gladly welcome numbers to the contrary showing just how many 8 and 9 year old iMacs are still being used, how unimportant recycling is, the intelligence of users to install Linux Mint but don't know the difference between new and old hardware, etc.
Upgrading from acting like a technocrat fascist to a technocrat elitist I see!
My, how important your opinions are compared to us peasants' opinions - please tell us more oh wise one.

The bottom line is you want support for an incredibly small amount of machines in a hardware base that either doesn't want support or need it. Because they're not using these machines for current computing tasks, too ignorant to know the difference, or simply want to keep old hardware sitting on a shrine somewhere as a "vintage machine" that they think is cool.
Yes, continuing support for computers by a multi-trillion dollar megacorp should be far more cost effective than you are leading on.
Siding with a megacorp that doesn't give two shits about you, like Apple values your support or something - boy do I have news for you...

Apple has forced no one to do anything with their old hardware. If you want to keep it forever and use it just like it is then you are free to do that. No point you've made addresses that. This is a massive fake news post. No one has to bury anything they don't want. Apple would prefer it's not in the landfill (which apparently you don't care about) and recycled properly - but users are free to do what they choose. Is that not clear to you?
By ending support, and without 3rd party support tools like Opencore Legacy Patcher, Apple has basically relegated all of these old but perfectly capable systems to a landfill.
No, Apple does not care if they are in a landfill or not, and they do not even care about human life as proven for decades now about their own slave labour in China, but I suppose you think those facts and reality are fake news as well.

If it were up to Apple, they would put a fuse-based kill switch in their systems and would trigger it the moment they deem those systems EOL if they could get away with it without public outcry, legal or not.
This is a megacorp we are talking about, not a small business which has the best intentions and wishes for its loyal customers who happen to be human beings.

Also covered in what I said next. A majority of users do not use machines for 8 years.
Outside of enterprise, you would be shocked at how inaccurate that statement is.

DNX also went on a dumb tangent saying that Apple recycles machines just to build monitor stands.
They do, the aluminum is recycled, which is at least good for the environment, but is also good for their profits which I might add does nothing for the customers in the end to reflect any kind of lower costs on products, discounts, etc.

Secondly for the 401st time
Get over yourself, your attitude and disrespect is getting old.
Shameful behavior from a senior member who has been on here for over 20 years.

If you're some weird power user like Red Falcon that wants to continue using this obsolete hardware and also wants software updates you can install Windows, Linux, or OpenCore for those that want to continue running macOS.
Ironic that you call me a "weird power user" when you are literally on [H]ardForum which consist of nothing but power users with esoteric technological tastes and desires.
I think it is time to hand in your [H]ard card and make your way over to Reddit...

I'm going to also bring up the fact that I never asked for your opinion or response to anything I stated, and would have been more than happy to enter into a respectful discussion about it with you.
However, you act as though I am bothering you and somehow offended you directly from my post, which was made long before you willfully chose to post in this thread.

The fact that you have become this upset and bothered by my one post to make walls of text and personally attack me shows that my post may very well have a hint of truth to it.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
I'm going to make many factual statements you won't like.
*Opinions
Everyone is big on buying the better product for the environment when in reality you shouldn't be buying another product unless you absolutely need to. Trashing a working 2013 Mac to buy a new Mac to basically do the same tasks is worse than not buying a new product. Even if you carefully recycle the old Mac, you're still generating more CO2 and other byproducts than you would if you didn't.
Great. And the worst offender here is still PC users. By volume. Start pointing the finger at every PC user in this place. Especially power users that upgrade their hardware yearly.
The Apple cutoff date might seem arbitrary to you, but as you're still not getting greater than 2 standard deviations of users dump their hardware before it becomes "obsolete" by Apple's standards.
The solution is to make products repairable, upgrade-able, and modular. Apple is doing none of that and is probably the worst offender. They don't because it isn't nearly as profitable.
While that is partially true it isn't the entire picture. What you don't like is computers that are designed to be appliances. And it's your hill to die on. Because we don't have this series conversations about washing machines, refrigerators, microwaves.
PC manufacturers are also doing this exact same thing in their space. Namely around laptops. The amount of people this is affecting is small.
If the Linux community can support older Macs for free, what does that say about Apple who's worth far too much?
The Linux community pays no one. Because their time is worthless. They are free to do with their time however they wish. Also there is another community that has created OpenCore like I already stated to continue running macOS if they should so choose.
You wanna use a machine that stops getting security updates? Also, lots of software including web browsers will refuse to work with older OS's. Eventually you gotta upgrade your software or you can't use certain websites.
That takes a very long time. In terms of browsers and support that takes forever. Especially because browsers such as Firefox and Chrome exist.
The Macbook Air 2012 I have was upgraded to Linux Mint and has a 256 SSD. Apple still sells M2 Macbooks with SSD's. Made the UI look like Mac OS X, including the startup animation and sounds. Gave it to my niece so she can do school work, youtube, roblox, and minecraft.
(y)
Apple is one of the most profitable companiess in the world, so they can afford to make better designs that allow for upgrade-ablety and repairs. When my desktop PC breaks I don't replace it I just replace the broken part. The same can't be said about Apple products.
Cool. This is why you buy PCs. It's called: choice in the market. Buy what you want. Other people buy what they want.
I love how you keep getting upset for other people. You're so mad for all of those people that made the decision to buy a 2013 iMac. People that are likely still not using said machine. As I guarantee the user base of said machine vs when they purchased it new is in the single digit percentiles.
Turns out all of those buyers were happy to do it, and they likely already bought another Mac. Or two. Since the M1 the Mac user base has been increasing. Machines I'll note that have zero user replaceable parts.

Everything you're talking about as being so important isn't important to everyone buying these machines. If it was, they'd buy a PC. Apparently people can't make decisions you don't like or you get upset at mega corporations as if they're the ones to blame. If you'd stop being outraged for other people that don't exist, we probably could eliminate half of your responses in every Apple thread.
You're just a jerk who's throwing stones in glass houses.
Just telling it like it is. Sorry that it tastes bad going down.
Get Apple to open source their entire Mac OSX and let the community support their older hardware. I guarantee you people would do it.
Apple is a business. If you want to run Apple, buy them. They owe you nothing. You don't give them your business anyway, why would they listen to you?
Apple won't because money. My point is that lack of software support for older Macs is a financial decision,
Yes. Capitalism. Show me any PC manufacturer that isn't doing something because of money. I'll wait.
and not a environmentally friendly one too.
You harp on this while every PC manufactures stuff gets dumped in the trash and terms into e-waste. If you want to talk about throwing stones in glass houses, this is it. PC's carbon footprint in environmentalism is far worse.
For the second time, show me any major PC manufacturer with a better environmental score card. I'm still waiting. Show me.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,795
Great. And the worst offender here is still PC users. By volume. Start pointing the finger at every PC user in this place. Especially power users that upgrade their hardware yearly.
Cutting everything else out from your troll post, and outlining this for the mods to see.
No one asked you to participate in this thread, nor insult all of us for having a different opinion from your own.

If you hate this place and everyone in it so much, why don't you delete your account and go act like a technocrat fascist somewhere else.
I will be shocked if the mods don't straight up ban you after this, your posts and insults are deplorable and beyond disrespectful, and have added nothing to this discussion.

We agree. My response: this is capitalism.
Show me any company that isn't trying to get margin. I'll wait.
These are all businesses.
No, Apple practices corporatism, not capitalism.
There is a difference, and while I am not getting into it outside of Soapbox, I would advise you to lookup the difference.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
You would be surprised at how much higher that percentage is, especially on the secondary and used markets.
Making a lot of assumptions without citing any sources, but if you do I will be more than happy to concede if you actually prove us wrong with facts and not personal opinions like you are doing now.
Great. I'm all for numbers. Show me the numbers. Everyone is still using their 2013 and 2014 iMacs, this is your big claim: so lets see all the people out here that are using these machines.
Upgrading from acting like a technocrat fascist to a technocrat elitist I see!
My, how important your opinions are compared to us peasants' opinions - please tell us more oh wise one.
There isn't too much point responding to most of your post. It's not really even addressing anything that I've stated. It's a lot of "I know you are but what am I" and ironically as you stated that I'm out here insulting people and making assumptions you come out with this line more than once.
Yes, continuing support for computers by a multi-trillion dollar megacorp should be far more cost effective than you are leading on.
Siding with a megacorp that doesn't give two shits about you, like Apple values your support or something - boy do I have news for you...
NO COMPANY DOES. The irony is that this is just the company for your to target and hate. It makes no difference if that company is Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, nVidia, AMD, TSMC. None of them care. But I think it's incredibly ironic that Apple is the worst.
Cutting everything else out from your troll post, and outlining this for the mods to see.
No one asked you to participate in this thread, nor insult all of us for having a different opinion from your own.

If you hate this place and everyone in it so much, why don't you delete your account and go act like a technocrat fascist somewhere else.
I will be shocked if the mods don't straight up ban you after this, your posts and insults are deplorable and beyond disrespectful, and have added nothing to this discussion.
Wow really? You apparently don't understand pure numbers. What I said is literally the case. If you're going to be upset at Apple then you should have an equal amount of anger for the vast majority of the user base that is contributing to the exact same thing.
I'm pointing out the huge amount of hypocrisy you have. If you want to hate Apple that's fine. But if you're to do so then at least have an honest assessment of the entire space. And currently you don't. PC's create more e-waste. Period. That is literally the truth. It's 90% of the user base vs 10% of the user base. It's hard math.
And if you upgrade yearly then by the definitions that you and DNX have put forward, then you're part of the problem.

If everything is about using everything as much as possible for the longest time possible then upgrading yearly is the worst possible thing you can do. That isn't the standard I've presented. That's the standard you've presented.
No, this is corporatism, not capitalism.
There is a difference, and while I am not getting into it outside of Soapbox, I would advise you to lookup the difference.
Okay. And that is different from Amazon, TSMC, Samsung, Microsoft, in what way?
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,795
It makes no difference if that company is Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, TSMC. None of them care. But I think it's incredibly ironic that Apple is the worst.
Correct, none of them care, though Apple does have the most slave labour out of them all, so yes, it is morally the worst.

Okay. And that is different from Amazon, TSMC, Samsung, Microsoft, in what way?
Save for TSMC and Samsung, they are all the same.
There is a difference between yearning to make a profit with the best products and top competition, and trying to manipulate humanity itself through greed and power while quashing laws, morality, and better products by lesser companies.

Also, you were the first to make claims on all of the numbers, so why don't you educate us with your sources.
If I am wrong, I will be more than happy to admit it - will you be willing to do the same?
If everything is about using everything as much as possible for the longest time possible then upgrading yearly is the worst possible thing you can do. That isn't the standard I've presented. That's the standard you've presented.
I wasn't the one who presented that, but as long as the equipment can be reused, recycled, or sold to someone who will use it, I don't see that as being a bad standard, and probably one that all cultures should embrace to make the most of what they have.
Our ancestors and forefathers did this, so why shouldn't we?
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Correct, none of them care, though Apple does have the most slave labour out of them all, so yes, it is morally the worst.
You'd have a really hard time proving that. Especially considering every PC part (and yes I'm including Apple hardware here) uses rare earth metals that also uses slave labor. Most metals include slave labor.
All of them use parts from Foxconn and/or assembly from Foxconn, which is the exact same as Apple. Slave labor.
All of them contain parts and hardware from Chinese manufacturers. Slave labor.

You didn't address the rest of my points. Especially since according to you "(I've) added nothing to this discussion" and "(I'm) a fascist technocrat" and "disrespected everyone on this forum" when you literally took me out of context. Whatever. But on this you'd have a hard time proving your position.

When it comes to PC vs Mac, it's 90% vs 10%. And iPhones to Android it's roughly the same percentages. Meaning again by volume the PC space is far worse. It's just Apple has a bigger target on their back because they're the most profitable company in the world and by percentage they're the largest. If every PC manufacturer could somehow be one company though, that companies track record especially by size and volume would be far worse. But no one pays attention to you if you're (relatively) small.

When you're the "big bad" you make the headlines.
Save for TSMC and Samsung, they are all the same.
Samsung is one of the worst offenders ever. You should see how mega corps in general run Korea. If you want to see the definition of corporatism in action, it is in fact Samsung. They and other South Korean chaebols have been known to be untouchable at the government level for a very long time.
If you hate iPhone because Apple corporatism bad, and then choose to buy a Samsung Galaxy whatever, you're either ignorant or a hypocrite.
There is a difference between yearning to make a profit with the best products and top competition, and trying to manipulate humanity itself through greed and power while quashing laws, morality, and better products by lesser companies.
If you're using a PC, (and again, since I apparently have to state, I'm including Apple in this) then you're screwed. To me, both of you are putting a lot of energy into "but on this side we're screwed less", when what I see is that it's really equal but different. Especially with the biggest option being Microsoft Windows, and ever creeping information and privacy theft. In terms of OS lesser evils, Windows 11 vs macOS, I know which side I'm on.

If you're on the Windows side great. But if you argue for Linux, you're like Ross Perot in 1992. A vast minority and a fraction of a percent. And while you can argue from that place for yourself that isn't ever going to be the position of general users. There is a far greater likelihood of general users moving to ChromeOS and having Google get all of your data before Linux becomes a major player for home/office users.
Guess which side Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. all fall under:

lib-1.jpg
Thanks for the handy chart. But to me every company that you'd call capitalistic will eventually want to become coporatistic. It's a spectrum. There isn't a line in the sand. If you (as a company) become big enough, make enough profit, then it quickly becomes about protecting your interests at the expense of everyone else. I've watched this happen dozens of times with nVidia as an example constantly creating its own standards to screw over non-nVidia users and grab hold of the market. Then there was GPP.

The reality is much closer to both of us being screwed if you care.

I'll put it like this: if every other company could operate like Apple (and get their profit) they would.
Also, you were the first to make claims on all of the numbers, so why don't you educate us with your sources.
If I am wrong, I will be more than happy to admit it - will you be willing to do the same?
My position is we can't find numbers because there aren't any. But anyone using a 2013 iMac or 2014 iMac that is affected by this because it's their primary machine is free to drop a post. We can wait for all the Apple forums to light on fire. However just like every other transition to obsolescence which happens every year as new machines also come out every year, you won't find people out there with pitchforks. It's not to say you won't find any, but again, minorities are going to be a minority.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,795
You'd have a really hard time proving that. Especially considering every PC part (and yes I'm including Apple hardware here) uses rare earth metals that also uses slave labor. Most metals include slave labor.
All of them use parts from Foxconn and/or assembly from Foxconn, which is the exact same as Apple. Slave labor.
All of them contain parts and hardware from Chinese manufacturers. Slave labor.
I agree with all of that.
You didn't address the rest of my points. But on this you'd have a hard time proving your position.
Nah, you brought it up first in your posts, so by all means have at it.

When it comes to PC vs Mac, it's 90% vs 10%. And iPhones to Android it's roughly the same percentages. Meaning again by volume the PC space is far worse. It's just Apple has a bigger target on their back because they're the most profitable company in the world and by percentage they're the largest. If every PC manufacturer could somehow be one company though, that companies track record especially by size and volume would be far worse. But no one pays attention to you if you're small.

But when you're the "big bad" you make the headlines.
Apple also offshored tons of jobs from North America to China - you can add putting tons of capable people out of work in favour of slave labour.
This was all under Steve Jobs as well, which makes my first post all the more painful.

Samsung is one of the worse offenders ever. They have exposed people knowingly to toxic chemicals in Korea. Not even talking about not-domestic for them. You should see how mega corps in general run Korea. If you want to see the definition of corporatism in action, it is in fact Samsung. They have been known to be untouchable at the government level for a very long time.
I will give that one to you as well, agreed, and thanks for the video, that certainly helps.

If you're using a PC, (and again, since I apparently have to state, I'm including Apple in this) then you're screwed. To me, both of you are putting a lot of energy into "but on this side we're screwed less", when what I see is that it's really equal but different. Especially with the biggest option being Microsoft Windows, and ever creeping information and privacy theft. In terms of OS lesser evils, Windows 11 vs macOS, I know which side I'm on.
They are virtually the same in regards to that, so outside of *NIX it really doesn't matter.

If you're on the Windows side great. But if you argue for Linux, you're like Ross Perot in 1992. A vast minority and a fraction of a percent. And while you can argue from that place for yourself that isn't ever going to be the position of general users. There is a far greater likelihood of general users moving to ChromeOS and having Google get all of your data before Linux becomes a major player for home/office users.
Linux is a bit more like Bob Dole - this is the term Bob Dole will win for sure!
Ross Perot is basically FreeDOS at this point.

Either way, neither illegally sold USA missile tech to the Chinese like who was voted in during that term... though it really depends what the definition of what the word 'is' is. :whistle:

Thanks for the handy chart. But to me every company that you'd call capitalistic will eventually want to become coporatistic. It's a spectrum. There isn't a line in the sand.
Disagreed on this, the line is good and evil.
Any grey-zone is just subterfuge for the latter.

If you (as a company) become big enough, make enough profit, then it quickly becomes about protecting your interests at the expense of everyone else. I've watched this happen dozens of times with nVidia as an example constantly creating its own standards to screw over non-nVidia users and grab hold of the market. Then there was GPP.
Agreed, though each nation were supposed to implement laws in order to prevent this.
I guess each nation just ignores said laws in favour of kickbacks and bribes to let said largecorps become megacorps and do whatever they want to their peasants customers.

Again, good and evil.

The reality is much closer to both of us being screwed if you care.
It is the dark cyberpunk future, so I would suggest all three of us sit down and have a cold one since we are all in this together. :borg:🍻
Would have been a much better discussion if things had started off with dialog like this instead of insults. ;)

My position is we can't find numbers because there aren't any. But anyone using a 2013 iMac or 2014 iMac that is affected by this because it's their primary machine is free to drop a post. We can wait for all the Apple forums to light on fire. However just like every other transition to obsolescence which happens every year as new machines also come out every year, you won't find people out there with pitchforks. It's not to say you won't find any, but again, minorities are going to be a minority.
If there aren't any numbers, then how do you know for sure.
Considering how many individuals I know who are still using numerous iMacs, desktops, and laptops from nearly a decade ago or more, and in sigs on here, it would seem to suggest the opposite is true.

Again though, if you can provide a source with numbers on it then I am willing to consider the alternative.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Apple also offshored tons of jobs from North America to China - you can add putting tons of capable people out of work in favour of slave labour.
This was all under Steve Jobs as well, which makes my first post all the more painful.
There is basically no PC production at all in the US. Intel and AMD have started to bring back some chip production here, but in terms of basically all the other hardware we're talking about it's all in China. Apple's processors are made by TSMC, so processor wise it's a wash.

The Mac Pro is still assembled in Texas. But honestly again, this whole discussion is splitting hairs. If you're buying any laptop it's basically completely manufacturered in China. I don't care if it's HP, Lenovo, Dell, Apple. It makes no difference. And it's the same for all other pre-built machines like Dell/HP/etc. And at the component level as we've discussed, it's all also the same.
They are virtually the same in regards to that, so outside of *NIX it really doesn't matter.
I disagree here. Apple has fought for privacy on numerous occasions with visible results that have helped users. The most obvious recent case is making it so Facebook couldn't track their users outside of the app and broke their ability to track everything. And we know they were successful because it punched Facebook's bottom line with advertisers in the gut. This has happened repeatedly that goes beyond lip service.
They've limited all app tracking. They've made it so that each function on every app could be controlled in terms of what resources it has access to at the per app level (Android also has this feature, I'm aware), and have continued down this path for sometime.

They have also refused to create back doors to unlock hardware, even when pressured by the government in very public trials. To me, all of this is very meaningful. Microsoft and others have never held these positions. And if they've developed privacy policies at all (Google) it wasn't until they felt they had to match Apple.

They can do all of these things because advertising is not a core business of theirs, and neither is being an information broker. Which are both core businesses for Google and Microsoft. So while we can't say that Apple is operating altruistically, this is a strength they've leaned into.

We could get into another discussion about "well Apple has your data" and all that or whatever, but at least in the case of Apple, it's only Apple using it for their purposes. In Microsoft's case not only do they use it, but they're selling all of it. And that is apparent. Again, you may not care or see the difference, but I do. Between little snitch and and a VPN most if not all of my net stuff is either blocked or at least anonymized. How effective all that is is another question entirely, but I digress again.

This just addresses privacy. I also could get into personal preference, stability, and how dreadfully awful driver management is, Windows Update, the registry, and how Microsoft offering all of this extended compatibility and life has left them with a carbuncle. To me lack of support is a tradeoff to have efficiency. And that's a discussion here we haven't had at all. But I personally am glad to trade shorter support windows for machines that always operate nimbly. If you want to get all software marching one direction (like as an example to adopt the newly minted Metal 3), then there has to be a constant march of things "going obsolete" to force programers to update. And similarly having hardware cutoffs in order to have all the hardware be able to support those standards. That's the "hidden" part of this discussion we never even got to. Part of the reason why I strongly dislike Windows is precisely because it's so bloated and supports "everything". Not everyone appreciates this obviously, hence why there are alternatives in the market that cater to PC users. Macs aren't for everyone, but the PC way of doing things isn't for everyone either. Which is precisely why I think it would be bad for Apple to operate like the PC market. The PC market already exists, if you want that, buy that. People who buy Mac's very clearly prefer fully integrated appliances that require the least management possible.

Anyway, given the alternatives Apple seems easily the lesser evil compared to Microsoft and Google, which are the only major alternatives in desktop and mobile computing spaces. But even speaking of evils is kind of irrelevant when they're largely the same in a lot of different ways. I honestly don't know why it can't just be a discussion about picking your preference or the tools necessary for doing your job. Rather than spending time trying to say planned obsolesence makes you evil, especially when the plan to do so (the support window) is known at purchase and is a well known "thing".
Disagreed on this, the line is good and evil.
Any grey-zone is just subterfuge for the latter.
I would agree. Except to me I'd categorize every megacorp then as evil. And for the purposes of our discussion (when we're talking about all of these PC manufacturers) it's the same thing.
Agreed, though each nation were supposed to implement laws in order to prevent this.
I guess each nation just ignores said laws in favour of kickbacks and bribes to let said largecorps become megacorps and do whatever they want to their peasants customers.
Some places do better than others. It's less of an issue in Europe. At least in Europe a lot of the laws generated by the EU and also in individual member countries are about protecting the interests of their people. Even if met with other problems.

And while I do feel that there should be the least amount of regulations possible to get the job done (and the government is terrible at knowing how to specify a standard vs way of accomplishing a goal) the purpose of the government is to serve and protect the people. The most obivous ways to do that is to protect the labor force, minimize destruction of shared resources, and to hold those responsible accountable. The US government has done a very poor job of that. Legal bribes/kickbacks (lobbying) is one of the most powerful tools in corporate agenda.
Again, good and evil.
Even as a believer in Jesus I'd say it's hard to try and state any given company is purely good. And since you don't see shades of grey, then by default they're evil. It's pretty hard to say that any company is purely evil. Because as one example you're going to have good people working for bad companies and vice versa. It's not an episode of Captain Planet in which some guy literally just has pollution machines just to be a dick. By definition they are offering utility which people either want or need. If they didn't or weren't they wouldn't have anything that people would be giving all of their money towards.
Some of these companies that I would consider to be "evil" like BP, we could even say are "necessary evils". If all the oil companies magically disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, the whole world would shut down and we'd have a massive energy crisis.

Weighing how much good a company does vs how much bad it does is impossible. But maybe that's just me. If the standard is perfection though, then all are left wanting.
It is the dark cyberpunk future, so I would suggest all three of us sit down and have a cold one since we are all in this together. :borg:🍻
I play devils advocate, I'm not necessarily on or not on anyone elses side. But I'll be honest with you it annoys me when people pile on to one company and don't do the same to others in equal measure. I guess you could say hypocrisy is my button. And to be fair to all those involved including pointing the finger at myself, we're all hypocrits about something or to some degree. But I think it should be a collective human goal to be least amount possible.

They say that if you "hate" anyone it's because you don't know them well enough. I have little interest in hating you or anyone else. I'd welcome a beer.
Would have been a much better discussion if things had started off with dialog like this instead of insults. ;)
Insults aren't the point, they're punctuation to shake people off of podiums. But I also wouldn't say that any of my negative statements were designed to be 'personal'. I don't know you or DNX, I'm not going to talk about your mom's. If you took any of it personally, I'm sorry.
If there aren't any numbers, then how do you know for sure.
Considering how many individuals I know who are still using numerous iMacs, desktops, and laptops from nearly a decade ago or more, and in sigs on here, it would seem to suggest the opposite is true.

Again though, if you can provide a source with numbers on it then I am willing to consider the alternative.
I've known several people throughout the years that have used obsoleted Mac's. And again, I don't say that they don't exist. Just that it's a minority. We can know this at least in part through implication of hardware sales. I personally haven't seen sigs with a bunch of obsoleted Macs in them. But I tend to not look at sigs that often. I'd be willing to be wrong in the case that anyone has numbers as well.
Just knowing the tendencies of users though, I think it's hard to say there's a bunch of 8-9 year old Mac's that people use as a primary machine that are getting screwed here.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,548
*Opinions
Prove me wrong.
Great. And the worst offender here is still PC users. By volume. Start pointing the finger at every PC user in this place. Especially power users that upgrade their hardware yearly.
Some people do buy entirely new PC's, but most just upgrade a GPU. You can't do that with laptops in general, but at least the SSD and ram is usually upgradable. You can upgrade the motherboard if you so choose to in laptops. Apple's latest products won't even swap Apple parts with Apple parts without it being software locked.
While that is partially true it isn't the entire picture. What you don't like is computers that are designed to be appliances. And it's your hill to die on. Because we don't have this series conversations about washing machines, refrigerators, microwaves.
I literally just repaired my washing machine. I used this video. Pretty sure a washing machine is an appliance. So where's that hill?

PC manufacturers are also doing this exact same thing in their space. Namely around laptops. The amount of people this is affecting is small.
Affecting less people isn't an excuse to be shit. Just because a lot of people aren't doing it, doesn't mean they are ok with it.
The Linux community pays no one. Because their time is worthless.
Lots of people are going to find out how much their time is actually worth soon. Valve pays a good deal of the Linux community to work on Linux. Apple is worth more than Valve so how is aren't they willing to pay to support older hardware?
That takes a very long time. In terms of browsers and support that takes forever. Especially because browsers such as Firefox and Chrome exist.
These web browsers will refuse to install on outdated machines eventually. I know I've tried.
Just telling it like it is. Sorry that it tastes bad going down.
You are what it is. That's why I said you're throwing stones from a glass house.
You harp on this while every PC manufactures stuff gets dumped in the trash and terms into e-waste. If you want to talk about throwing stones in glass houses, this is it. PC's carbon footprint in environmentalism is far worse.
For the second time, show me any major PC manufacturer with a better environmental score card. I'm still waiting. Show me.
Which PC? With laptops it isn't too different from Apple, but that really depends on the manufacturer. Most laptop PC's can have their storage and ram replaced while on the M1/M2's have that soldered on. If your SSD fails in your M1/M2 laptop, then it is trash. With desktops being based on the ATX standard very little is wated. PSU fails? Replace it for $60. GPU fails? Replace it. CPU fails? Replace it. If anything fails on a Mac you replace the Mac. The difference now is that when Apple stops supporting software then you might as well put it in the trash, or give it to Apple who will likely put it in the trash.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Prove me wrong.
Prove yourself right.
Some people do buy entirely new PC's, but most just upgrade a GPU. You can't do that with laptops in general, but at least the SSD and ram is usually upgradable. You can upgrade the motherboard if you so choose to in laptops. Apple's latest products won't even swap Apple parts with Apple parts without it being software locked.
And?
I literally just repaired my washing machine. I used this video. Pretty sure a washing machine is an appliance. So where's that hill?

Good for you? You know how you keep arguing about how "my experiences/opinions aren't the world?" Yeah, this is one of those cases. No one is doing this.
Affecting less people isn't an excuse to be shit. Just because a lot of people aren't doing it, doesn't mean they are ok with it.
That's fine. DNX, be angry for machines you don't buy or use. Be angry for people who don't care. Every person who is filling Apple's pockets is just soooo upset about all of this stuff.
Lots of people are going to find out how much their time is actually worth soon. Valve pays a good deal of the Linux community to work on Linux. Apple is worth more than Valve so how is aren't they willing to pay to support older hardware?
What are you talking about? SteamOS supports incredibly limited hardware:
https://store.steampowered.com/steamos
Most importantly, SteamOS only supports a certain set of hardware (you can read more in our FAQ). We will add support for newer hardware over time, but we have no plans to add more support for older hardware.

That is straight from Valve's mouths. Also, it's not me you have to convince anyway. It's general users you have to convince and this is what Valve has to say about that:
Although we have made SteamOS freely available for anybody to install, the installation experience is not intended for a non-technical user.
This isn't going to be the PC hardware savior you think it is anytime soon. Until joe-schmo can install this as easily as Windows, it will never take off.

Perhaps you've also forgotten Valve's recent past with the Steam Machine:
https://gamerant.com/valve-steam-deck-hardware-history-steam-machines-link/
The Steam Machines looked to be an exciting next step for Steam, but problems arose as the release date neared. In November 2015, both Falcon Northwest and Origin PC pulled out due to limitations with SteamOS. Seven months after release the Steam Machines had fewer than half a million sales, and by the end of 2016 most companies shelved their machines. In 2018 Valve removed a link to the Steam Machines page on Steam, and in 2019 the Steam Controller was discontinued.
Your idea that Valve is some magical company supporting many hardware variations through Linux has already proved itself to be false. Try again. Linux has a long way to ever becoming a gaming savior. Especially at scale.

Steam Deck is Valve's way forward. Creating very Apple like experiences, which is to say non-upgrade-able hardware that they can tightly control.
These web browsers will refuse to install on outdated machines eventually. I know I've tried.
Sure. And by then we're talking about hardware that's obsolete on obsolete.
You are what it is. That's why I said you're throwing stones from a glass house.
I'm okay inside of reality. Apparently you aren't.
Which PC?
Pick a manufacturer. Carte blanche. Your best case scenario.
With laptops it isn't too different from Apple, but that really depends on the manufacturer. Most laptop PC's can have their storage and ram replaced while on the M1/M2's have that soldered on. If your SSD fails in your M1/M2 laptop, then it is trash. With desktops being based on the ATX standard very little is wated. PSU fails? Replace it for $60. GPU fails? Replace it. CPU fails? Replace it.
Okay, this position literally doesn't make sense. Here, let me spell it out for you: 100% of computer hardware will become trash. Talking about replacing parts of hardware is a band-aid. Here's another tidbit, eventually no matter the hardware it becomes obsolete to run daily tasks. Your line in the sand is just different than mine but there is zero argument you can say here about that "not being true". There is zero hardware that's 30 years old being used by anyone in this forum that is running any modern relevant task. There are no machines outside of vintage toys that are 20 years old. Guess where all those machines went? The trash. So talking about replacement parts still means this stuff ends up in the trash. All of those SSD's that failed? The trash. The ATX power supplies that failed? The trash. GPU's that failed? The trash. PC's being so great because they aren't being recycled but still going in the trash is not a good environmental argument. All of it is being turned into e-waste.

A huge part of your argument comes down to "everyone uses their computers for longer than 7 years" and support windows shorter than that means a massive multiplication in e-waste. Again, I would suggest to you that that problem already existed before. Apple has just already figured out the optimal support base for likely two standard deviations of their users. Want to know why I think this? Because the only one with pitchforks out here are people like you white knighting: literally people not buying new Apple hardware. If not having extended support windows was affecting so many people and it was important and/or they cared they simply wouldn't buy another Apple product. Which is actually what I would suggest. Stop buying Apple products if this matters to you. However, as I've mentioned more than once in more than one way: you're going to find that apparently it doesn't matter to the user base. It's apparently this concept that actually bothers you. That there are people who buy these products and do not care, so apparently you have to care for them.

If people want to have replaceable parts and/or a longer support window: they should buy a PC. Wow, magical suggestion. I have little want, need, or desire, for Apple to imitate the PC space. And clearly with Apple's sales numbers going up in the PC market, neither does anyone else. Otherwise they'd buy a PC.
Even as you've noted in other threads about Google overtaking Apple hardware, all of that is Chromebooks. It's not just Mac people that don't care. It's a majority of PC users too. But feel free to be angry for the Chromebook users and the vast majority that do all of their computing on devices with no replaceable parts; that is to say laptops and phones.
If anything fails on a Mac you replace the Mac.
Or you know, take it to a service center like a normal person and get it repaired.
The difference now is that when Apple stops supporting software then you might as well put it in the trash,
You don't even feel this way. Just install Linux, or Windows, or OpenCore on it as you've said numerous times. Except you'll find 99.9% won't do this as we've discussed multiple times. Because we wealthy 1%ers flip our hardware significantly faster than that (as in all of us who have the privilege of living in the west). I'm not saying this because we some how are "superior". I'm saying this simply as a fact.
EDIT: And even my position is that there isn't the user base you think there is using this old hardware. More on that below.
or give it to Apple who will likely put it in the trash.
Apple uses recycled materials and recycles its own materials close looping a large percentage of their hardware. They have a massive recycling center in Texas just for this purpose. No PC manufacturer is doing this. And considering PC's are 90% of the market they're the ones doing all of the damage: because that's how numbers work. It's good to see how much of your positions are based on opinion rather than any form of reality or fact.

Show me the environmental records. Third time. Lets see them. It should be easy right? You're saying PC's are better, pick one and show me.

Again, at least Apple recycles everything. They've gone partially carbon neutral on all their manufacturing while planning to hit 100% by 2030. Their server farms are run off 100% renewable energy. They've gotten all their suppliers to move to renewable energy. They stopped using mercury in screens and have avoided toxic chemicals in manufacturing.

From pure numbers PC's are worse (90% vs 10%). From recycling, PC's are worse. From carbon neutrality PC's are worse. From using toxic chemicals PC's are worse. From using unenvironmentally friendly energy sources PC's are worse. I've given sources. Prove me wrong. So far going back to your first comment, it has all been opinions.
In terms of morality, I'd say they're a wash, for reasons I already discussed with Red Falcon.

Funny video. But also not how virtually anyone operates in this place. If you're born and raised in the third world, that's tough. I know in part because I lived in Vietnam and where my mom comes from was the poorest of the poor in the 1950s. I've also done missions work in other third world countries. They absolutely keep terrible hardware running for the longest period of time possible because they have to and they have to be resourceful. People still bought Mac's there if they had the means and they wanted one.

You'll note all of that hardware that broke in the video, found it's way into the trash.

However more to the point, where all the Mac's are really getting sold is here (in the 'west') where the wealthiest 1% live. And it's pretty hard to be on any form of high horse when we have a thread discussing people buying $1600 graphics cards that cost more than people's Macbook Air's, likely Apple's highest selling computing device. And then we have a second one complaining about $1000 graphics cards not being as fast as the $1600 ones. In fact a good chunk of Apple hardware all costs less then graphics cards that the 1%ers in this forum buy literally every year and then effectively get rid of. And while you can discuss reseller market, all of that is still producing more hardware than is necessary if the whole goal is sustainability. Which it isn't, otherwise you'd complain to every PC head that they don't need to be buying all of this hardware all of the time.

This entire forum is literally about the lavishness of spending absurd amounts of money on their computing hobby. PC heads have no leg to stand on if you're going to argue environmentalism. They replace their hardware far faster than every 8-9 years, it's every 6-12 months. All corporate businesses are based around 3 year cycles. Education market is based around 3 year cycles. And both of those buy way more machines than consumers. Even including "normal" individuals a majority is 5-6 years. Anyone beyond that is an outlier, which yes, includes you the appliance repair man. EDIT: and just for you, here are some examples below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Just for fun I searched for how often people should replace their hardware and how long do they. And for laptops and desktops alike the general consensus from multiple tech websites is 3 years on average and 5 years at the upper end.
https://www.bustle.com/p/when-is-it...ll-tale-signs-you-need-to-say-goodbye-6457626
According to Computer Hope, you should expect to replace your computer once every four years. That's based on a cost analysis, plus the average time it takes to wear out the internal parts of the computer. Home Computer Help gives a slightly different estimate: Five years for desktops, and three to four for laptops. If those seem like short lifetimes to you, they are — but they're firm ones. Computers simply aren't built to last a long time, and even if they were, software updates so quickly, older machines often can't keep up with new programs.
https://www.bit-tech.net/news/tech/pcs/most-computers-replaced-after-4-5-years/1/
According to a recent survey, over half of PC users think their PC should last 'much longer' than three years, but on average people still replace their machines every 4.5 years.
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/65-when-to-replace-the-company-computers.html
In general, you can expect to keep a laptop functioning for three years on average with budget models. More durable, higher-end models can last up to five years at the upper end.
https://techsquared.com/2020/07/6-signs-that-tell-you-its-time-to-buy-a-new-computer/
Your computer’s life span will depend on several factors, including its make and components, as well as where and how you use it. But on average, office computers are replaced every three to five years. In many cases, these machines are replaced not because they don’t work, but because they are no longer as efficient as they need to be.

And here's one from Intel small business outlining all the costs associated with maintaining older hardware:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...ess/resources/when-to-buy-a-new-computer.html
You may think you can keep your business’s old PCs running until they die, but there are many PC replacement benefits to getting a new computer before that happens. For instance, the older computers get, the more likely they are to need repairs. According to research from J. Gold Associates commissioned by Intel, a five-year-old computer costs an average of $662 annually in repairs.2 Small businesses in the study also reported that, on average, 43% of their PCs more than five years old malfunctioned annually. By comparison, just slightly over 5% of computers less than a year old malfunctioned.3
And also Microsoft:
https://news.microsoft.com/en-nz/20...ealed-in-microsoft-study-more-than-4000-each/
According to the Pan-Asia SMB PC Study, the optimal age of PCs is no more than four years old, beyond which the cost of repairs and lost productivity makes them cheaper to replace. Older computers are more than twice as likely to experience issues like being slow to boot up, batteries depleting too soon, disk drive crashes causing data losses, application crashes and network connectivity problems. The total cost of owning a PC that is four or more years old is enough to replace it with two or more newer models.

So here's the factual evidence. Even every PC site I could find recommends replacing PC's inside of a 5 year window. This is well inside Apple's 7 year+ window that you're complaining about in this thread. In fact, in light of that, Apple's 5 year vintage window + 2 year obsolete window makes perfect sense. Exactly like I said it would. At this point you're not even arguing with me. You're arguing literally with consumer behavior and basically all industry advice. You're an outlier that thinks everyone else is an outlier. You wanted evidence, there it all is. Feel free to provide something more than anecdotal evidence and a cute YouTube video.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,548
Good for you? You know how you keep arguing about how "my experiences/opinions aren't the world?" Yeah, this is one of those cases. No one is doing this.
This isn't an opinion. You can repair washing machines which is an appliance. Me fixing an old washing machine is still better than trashing it. Buying a new replacement no matter how advanced it is, will still have a greater carbon footprint than just repairing or continuing to use an older product. Being correct isn't a popularity contest. If people aren't doing it then that's on them. Our job as nerds (and yes you're one of them) is to make it easier for people to do it.

Let me know how much you can repair a Steam Deck. Even they know that building custom "standard" PC's is a worthless pursuit. They got 90% of the way there and then scrapped the project. It's way more likely all of their hardware is custom with barely user replaceable anything.
Valve literally gives you the 3D design to 3D print replacement parts. It doesn't get more repairable then that.
Sure. And by then we're talking about hardware that's obsolete on obsolete.
I fix it by installing an updated OS like Linux.
I'm okay inside of reality. Apparently you aren't.
You saying that contradicts it.
Here, let me spell it out for you: 100% of computer hardware will become trash.
Computers don't age like they used to. Because of this reason, software is pretty much the best way to make something obsolete. This is harder for PC because of all the choices there is for software. Devices like the M1's, iOS, and Android devices are far more likely to be obsolete through software. My 2012 Macbook Air has a 256 GB SSD. The modern Apple Mackbook Air's are still sold with 256GB SSD's.
Talking about replacing parts of hardware is a band-aid. Here's another tidbit, eventually no matter the hardware it becomes obsolete to run daily tasks.
You need to look up the Ship of Theseus. If we somehow standardize laptops like with desktops then you can indefinitely upgrade it. If you want to fight pollution then I would force all laptop manufacturers to require upgradable and replaceable parts but pushing for a standard. Like the power adapters for Apple's iOS devices when they refused to use USB-C.
Your line in the sand is just different than mine but there is zero argument you can say here about that "not being true". There is zero hardware that's 30 years old being used by anyone in this forum that is running any modern relevant task.
Cars, houses, washing machines, refrigerators.
There are no machines outside of vintage toys that are 20 years old. Guess where all those machines went? The trash.
You replaced computers far more faster back then too because technology advanced more quickly.
So talking about replacement parts still means this stuff ends up in the trash. All of those SSD's that failed? The trash.
Well yes but they can be replaced. Also they can technically be repaired.

The ATX power supplies that failed? The trash. GPU's that failed? The trash. PC's being so great because they aren't being recycled but still going in the trash is not a good environmental argument. All of it is being turned into e-waste.
The idea is that you don't trash the entire PC. Still better to repair it than to replace the entire unit. Just because everything will end up in the trash doesn't mean we should speed up the process. Not responding to the rest of your wall of text because less trash is better for the environment. An elementary student can understand this concept. Less trash is less, and there's no such thing as carbon neutral.

https://www.makeuseof.com/apple-isnt-as-green-as-it-pretends-to-be/
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
This isn't an opinion. You can repair washing machines which is an appliance. Me fixing an old washing machine is still better than trashing it. Buying a new replacement no matter how advanced it is, will still have a greater carbon footprint than just repairing or continuing to use an older product. Being correct isn't a popularity contest. If people aren't doing it then that's on them. Our job as nerds (and yes you're one of them) is to make it easier for people to do it.
Okay. Convince 99.9999% of the population about this. For some reason you think this is about convincing me. That isn't what the world is doing.
Valve literally gives you the 3D design to 3D print replacement parts. It doesn't get more repairable then that.
Your entire discussion is predicated around the hardware. Good goal post moving. You can't replace any of the major hardware. Tell me how to replace the CPU or GPU in the Steam Deck. Or the motherboard. I'll wait.
I fix it by installing an updated OS like Linux.
(y)
You saying that contradicts it.
"I know you are but what am I?"
Computers don't age like they used to. Because of this reason, software is pretty much the best way to make something obsolete. This is harder for PC because of all the choices there is for software. Devices like the M1's, iOS, and Android devices are far more likely to be obsolete through software. My 2012 Macbook Air has a 256 GB SSD. The modern Apple Mackbook Air's are still sold with 256GB SSD's.
K.
You need to look up the Ship of Theseus. If we somehow standardize laptops like with desktops then you can indefinitely upgrade it. If you want to fight pollution then I would force all laptop manufacturers to require upgradable and replaceable parts but pushing for a standard.
I don't need to look it up.

That doesn't work. You want to know why it doesn't work? Because standards keep changing. Just in 20 years PCI isn't a thing, ISA, isn't a thing, AGP, we've gone through a dozen sockets, and just as many ports. VGA isn't relevant. Heck, HDMI standards, half of them aren't relevant. MXM wasn't successful and it's can't be. We've had SIMM, DIMM, DDR 1-5. Computers aren't boats. You can't replace them piece by piece.

But I'll challenge you to a mental exercise: imagine getting a Tandy 486 and map out to me how you could replace one part at a time and end up at a modern machine. Even if you could make a magical world where every part was "universally fitted" between then and now it would be a fools errand. It's not possible and you know it's not. And that's speaking of "desktop" computers. The best case scenario. In a laptop its 1000% harder as you then have to work with batteries, screens, and a ton of other components that have to work together in a mobile way.

The second part about this is that it's impossible to create universal internal standards that last forever either. Even PCI-E will eventually cease. At some point when there is that kind of switch, then all major system components have to be switched out. Even on a desktop there has to be motherboard, CPU, RAM that most often always has to be replaced all at once. In the event of major socket change like AGP to PCI-E then the graphics card goes with it.

None of this thinking is based anywhere in reality. And it will never work simply because it's all way too complicated.

Laptops like Framework will always be niche at best. But feel free to buy a framework laptop and see how far you get. I guarantee you, you'll only pay more money for more limited hardware and quickly find out that "universal standards" on a laptop cost significantly more than simply replacing the whole thing like a toaster.

If it's easy to figure out, you should do it, and make more money than Michael Dell. There's some smart people at Framework, I guarantee you they'll never capture more than a fraction of 1% of the market.
Like the power adapters for Apple's iOS devices when they refused to use USB-C.
Lightning has existed since before USB-C. Them continuing to use that standard has actually lessened e-waste. Especially according to you which has stated again and again that using things for the longest period of time is the best thing for e-waste. You can't have it both ways. Either things need to be updated or they don't.
Cars, houses, washing machines, refrigerators.
Computers, which computers? You change the subject constantly. There is ZERO computer hardware that is 30 years old that is remotely relevant. There isn't even 20 year old PC hardware that is relevant either. You win in your own mind because you have to bend discussions to such a degree that it's not even relevant or what I was talking about.

But thanks for proving my point that all 20 year old computer hardware is now in the trash and is completely irrelevant. At least we have one item settled.
You replaced computers far more faster back then too because technology advanced more quickly.
And? 2013 iMac's had dual core i5's. The current iMac has an M1. We're talking about multiple levels of magnitude in computing power difference. But as we've discussed you can't tell the difference.
Well yes but they can be replaced. Also they can technically be repaired.

Did you read any of that stuff from Microsoft or Intel or any of the other links? Because at a certain point you're losing ROI in down time, you lose ROI literally from speed. You lose money actually in repair cost, because it's actually based around "money spent per year". It goes beyond just sunk cost.

I actually found an article that recommended upgrading all people in small businesses every TWO years because increasing how fast they can do tasks increases ROI past the point of the value of keeping the old hardware AND buying the new hardware. But keep grasping.
The idea is that you don't trash the entire PC. Still better to repair it than to replace the entire unit. Just because everything will end up in the trash doesn't mean we should speed up the process. Not responding to the rest of your wall of text because less trash is better for the environment. An elementary student can understand this concept. Less trash is less, and there's no such thing as carbon neutral.
Great. Now again convince EVERYONE on the planet that they should stop doing full system replacements every 3-5 years. Again, you think this is about convincing me when it's about changing consumer behavior. Apple's model works because it's based around the consumers they serve. So all of the arguments you have about upgrading longer than 7 years is vassal when pretty much everyone on this forum regardless of if it's piece by piece or all at once, they're all replacing all of their hardware on average every 4 years. And this isn't even getting into the discussion that a majority of hardware that consumers buy is laptops with non-replaceable parts. Which as it turns out the user base whether on PC or Mac side doesn't care about.

That isn't "me" making that up, that's what people are doing. So Apple needing to change their policies to fit you, you who doesn't even buy their hardware, makes ZERO sense. Not in any form based in reality.

You don't even address half of my points. Because you can't. It's all based around picking and choosing. But as I noted in my previous post, the suggestion from all experts is to replace all your hardware every 3-5 years. You just don't like the taste of that going down. Even though in reality that's what 95%+ of consumers are doing.
Show me the PC manufacturers doing better. Hold everyone to the same standard. But you won't.
This article brings up the iPhone? You are aware that's 10% of the market right? What do you think Android markets are doing? Samsung is doing just as bad if not worse practices. Again, Apple is doing all of the things I mentioned before. Samsung is doing none of those things other than polluting at an even larger scale and being completely protected by the Korean government.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,795
That doesn't work. You want to know why it doesn't work? Because standards keep changing. Just in 20 years PCI isn't a thing, ISA, isn't a thing, AGP, we've gone through a dozen sockets, and just as many ports. VGA isn't relevant. Heck, HDMI standards, half of them aren't relevant. MXM wasn't successful and it's can't be. We've had SIMM, DIMM, DDR 1-5. Computers aren't boats. You can't replace them piece by piece.
Ah, this is not entirely true.
There are quite a few ancient pieces of legacy and proprietary equipment still afloat with PCI, ISA, VGA, etc. - those are all still relevant in some shape or form, even shockingly so.

The only one you listed that is truly obsolete and gone is AGP since it was used exclusively with graphics processors.
While the above technologies obviously should have been phased out years ago, doing so on legacy equipment or proprietary equipment is sometimes financially difficult to near impossible.

VGA continues to popup more often than I ever want, and while workstations are replaced monitors, however, are not.
I can't tell you how many HDMI-to-VGA and DP-to-VGA adapters I install, and it is ludicrous, but the bottom line is cost efficiency.

On the bleeding edge and even modern edge, of course you are correct that these now-ancient standards are all gone, but somehow they continue to live on and I know it isn't just me who continues to have to deal with them as they do.
While standard computers, workstations, servers, etc. may be replaced on a standardized basis of 3-5 years, their peripherals are not, and sometimes those peripherals are what demand those legacy technologies to continue to exist.

As for the HDMI standards, HDMI is backwards compatible and not every new peripheral needs HDMI 2.0+ to function, so that one is a bit out there unless we are talking bleeding edge.
Retrocomputing is fun, but when it shows up professionally that tells me that these old technologies have not gone out of this world completely, and if I am seeing them on a semi-regular basis, I can only imagine what everyone else comes across.

Hell, USA banking systems are still using equipment from the 1960s and 1970s on the very back-end with COBOL and Fortran, and to replace those financial systems could cost billions of USD and take decades, so it is financially easier to pay premiums to hire new employees to code in COBOL and Fortran for these truly ancient systems.
However, one day those workers who are in charge of these systems (who are now 80+ easily) are going to be gone, and that old-world legacy knowledge will be gone... time to pony up.


On a side note, I watched the video you posted about Samsung and how it destroyed so many people's lives.
It was truly heartbreaking, and my respect goes entirely to Yumi's dad who fought such an evil corporation and those in power to give her some peace.

Thank you very much for sharing that, everyone here should watch it and know exactly what Samsung is.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Ah, this is not entirely true.
There are quite a few ancient pieces of legacy and proprietary equipment still afloat with PCI, ISA, VGA, etc. - those are all still relevant in some shape or form, even shockingly so.

The only one you listed that is truly obsolete and gone is AGP since it was used exclusively with graphics processors.
While the above technologies obviously should have been phased out years ago, doing so on legacy equipment or proprietary equipment is sometimes financially difficult to near impossible.

VGA continues to popup more often than I ever want, and while workstations are replaced monitors, however, are not.
I can't tell you how many HDMI-to-VGA and DP-to-VGA adapters I install, and it is ludicrous, but the bottom line is cost efficiency.

On the bleeding edge and even modern edge, of course you are correct that these now-ancient standards are all gone, but somehow they continue to live on and I know it isn't just me who continues to have to deal with them as they do.
While standard computers, workstations, servers, etc. may be replaced on a standardized basis of 3-5 years, their peripherals are not, and sometimes those peripherals are what demand those legacy technologies to continue to exist.

As for the HDMI standards, HDMI is backwards compatible and not every new peripheral needs HDMI 2.0+ to function, so that one is a bit out there unless we are talking bleeding edge.
Retrocomputing is fun, but when it shows up professionally that tells me that these old technologies have not gone out of this world completely, and if I am seeing them on a semi-regular basis, I can only imagine what everyone else comes across.

Hell, USA banking systems are still using equipment from the 1960s and 1970s on the very back-end with COBOL and Fortran, and to replace those financial systems could cost billions of USD and take decades, so it is financially easier to pay premiums to hire new employees to code in COBOL and Fortran for these truly ancient systems.
However, one day those workers who are in charge of these systems (who are now 80+ easily) are going to be gone, and that old-world legacy knowledge will be gone... time to pony up.
I don't disagree with your points here, but for the purposes of building a universal standard machine it's not relevant. As I cheekily brought up a Tandy 486 could never be upgraded piece by piece to be a modern machine. At some point the motherboard, CPU, and RAM will all have to be changed at once because there are too many differences.

CPU's are so complex that Intel can't even use the same socket for more than one generation.

Imagine trying to upgrade a VGA display (attached to your laptop internally) to DVi and then to DP. It's not going to happen. Logistically and cost wise it makes zero sense. My point was it's actually cheaper to dump laptops like appliances than it is trying to make 20 years of standards work together in a one-after-another linear way. And it's true.

If we ever did try to create a laptop that could've lasted through those 20 years, we'd have a carbuncle that weighs 20 pounds. There is aboslutely no way to have ultra-books, which coincidentally is the format that consumers want and love the most, exist in some kind of universal format laptop world. It doesn't matter if we're talking the MBA, HP Envy, or Microsoft Surface: these devices are appliances. And trying to make them upgradable isn't possible and just a dumb idea. This isn't directed at you, but this is pure fantasy. And not realistic for the many reasons I've listed.
On a side note, I watched the video you posted about Samsung and how it destroyed so many people's lives.
It was truly heartbreaking, and my respect goes entirely to Yumi's dad who fought such an evil corporation and those in power to give her some peace.

Thank you very much for sharing that, everyone here should watch it and know exactly what Samsung is.
As we've talked about before with the dark cyberpunk future, for better or worse we're stuck with Samsung. They make our RAM, they're involved as a foundry for IC's. They make a lion's share of the display market. They are the smart phone leader.
I just want people to know that the truth so they can be honest with themselves and their purchasing decisions. Because it's not honest to avoid Apple and buy Samsung. Frankly as we've talked about before it's not really possible to buy any computing device period.

I hope they change. I believe in redemption. But I'm also pretty cynical (even though I shouldn't be from a faith perspective).
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,548
Okay, this position literally doesn't make sense. Here, let me spell it out for you: 100% of computer hardware will become trash.
Yes but by the time a PC is trashed entirely, it would be several years. By the time the M1's SSD's fail and you inevitably trash the entire machine because you can't replace soldered SSD's, is much sooner. What Apple is doing by not supporting older Macs is pushing for perfectly working hardware to be trashed much sooner. That's why people like Louis Rossmann made a carrier out of repairing Macs because not everyone wants to trash thousands of dollars PC in favor of buying a new one. A PC being trash is inevitable but by the time you trash a single PC, you would have bought 2 Macs.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxg-zl_qnPWUwBmTmBHkX7aA3x-o4n5UCw
Talking about replacing parts of hardware is a band-aid. Here's another tidbit, eventually no matter the hardware it becomes obsolete to run daily tasks. Your line in the sand is just different than mine but there is zero argument you can say here about that "not being true". There is zero hardware that's 30 years old being used by anyone in this forum that is running any modern relevant task.
Yea because in 30 years we went from "640K ought to be enough for anybody" to PC's equipped with gigabytes of ram. But PC's don't evolve like they used to. Go back 10 years and the average PC had 4GB of ram, which you can upgrade. Go back 20 years and people were happy with 512MB of ram. Go back 30 and 640K ought to be enough. Modern M2's still come with 8GB of ram, which is the same amount the PS4 came with in 2013. People today can use a Core2Duo for daily tasks without issue. Now if you play games or do video editing, that's a different story.
GPU's that failed? The trash.
Or fix it.

A huge part of your argument comes down to "everyone uses their computers for longer than 7 years" and support windows shorter than that means a massive multiplication in e-waste.
Lets look at valve's hardware survey to see what people do use on average. This is gaming so you're more likely to upgrade than someone who does spreadsheets and watches YouTube. Almost half are currently using 4 cores or 2 cores CPU's, which is safe to say isn't very modern. The GTX 1060 is still the most popular GPU, as well as a good number of GTX cards which are currently 6 years old. So for gaming there's a lot of people still using relatively old hardware. Imagine what people are using when they don't care about gaming or intensive tasks?
Want to know why I think this? Because the only one with pitchforks out here are people like you white knighting: literally people not buying new Apple hardware.

From pure numbers PC's are worse (90% vs 10%). From recycling, PC's are worse.
PC's also make up for more than 90% of sales, and that's including servers.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Yes but by the time a PC is trashed entirely, it would be several years. By the time the M1's SSD's fail and you inevitably trash the entire machine because you can't replace soldered SSD's, is much sooner. What Apple is doing by not supporting older Macs is pushing for perfectly working hardware to be trashed much sooner. That's why people like Louis Rossmann made a carrier out of repairing Macs because not everyone wants to trash thousands of dollars PC in favor of buying a new one. A PC being trash is inevitable but by the time you trash a single PC, you would have bought 2 Macs.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxg-zl_qnPWUwBmTmBHkX7aA3x-o4n5UCw
This is deceptive. The whole point of your upgrade piece by piece mentality and your whole ship metaphor is that in actually you're still buying two PC's. You're just doing it part by part vs all at once. It's pretty deceptive to say that isn't the case. And I spent a huge amount of time already showing the customer behavior. Enthusiasts are replacing every part in their machine whether all at once or part by part on average every 4 years. The mega hobbyiests are doing it in less than 2 years. That is in fact the same rate as you would be buying an equivalent Mac. Your upgrade "part by part" ideology is a false dichotomy. This is the consumer behavior. Either way you're buying two machines.

Secondly as we've seen in this thread Applecare coverage can be bought for 3 years. Software coverage is for 7 years. And repairs on all of those machines will have parts availability up to 7 years. Meaning all machines that require parts could be kept at minimum 7 years if you so desire with guaranteed software support. Just because YOU can't repair a Mac doesn't mean it goes in the trash either.
You talk about fixing your own video cards. No average user can do that, but all of them can take their hardware to a service center and get a fully operable machine in a reasonable time frame. In fact if people are capable of repairing a GPU, then they can fix a Mac. If that's your logic then problem solved.
Yea because in 30 years we went from "640K ought to be enough for anybody" to PC's equipped with gigabytes of ram. But PC's don't evolve like they used to. Go back 10 years and the average PC had 4GB of ram, which you can upgrade. Go back 20 years and people were happy with 512MB of ram. Go back 30 and 640K ought to be enough.
All of those number counts are based around "good enough" vs what power users are doing. For editing >4k material, Davinci Resolve recommends at minimum 64GB of RAM. What is good enough and what is required still keeps going up. The difference between a 4090 and a 3090 is is >60% gains.

Using a machine in 2022 with <16GB of RAM is painful for all but the most minimal and basic tasks. If you use Chrome I would say an 8GB machine is unusable. The M1 8GB is basically only usable NOT because 8GB is enough, but effectively because it's memory sub system and ability to cache to the harddrive is so fast that Apple could cheat extra performance that no PC without a custom ASIC and software can match. If anything the M1/M2 shows how much of an exception to the rule it is and not the norm. No PC can operate like the M1/M2 does. And similarly I would say no PC should be equipped with 8GB of RAM in 2022. Honestly I don't even think the M1/M2 should be equipped with 8GB of RAM in 2022.
Even for basic things I'd still recommend most people get 16GB of RAM just for the headroom. Because even though it's "not necessary" it's a lot better than smacking your head constantly against the 8GB ceiling. And for anyone doing remotely any intensive tasks, going to 32GB is still going to be beneficial. It is already in gaming as one example.

Software is becoming more demanding. Windows 95 could fit on a CD. Windows 11 can't. The harddrive space is irrelevant, what I'm referring to is complexity of the software. Some of which is straight up bloatware. But either way it takes way more to run a machine in 2022 than in 2012 when two cores and 4GB of RAM was enough.
Modern M2's still come with 8GB of ram, which is the same amount the PS4 came with in 2013.
This again is HIGHLY deceptive. To say that 8GB or RAM is 8GB of RAM isn't really true when one is embedded at the chip level and can essentially operate like 8GB of cache and the other are separate chips with much higher latency.
That is to say that there have been MASSIVE changes to the subsystems of these machines that make them operate faster. Back in 2011 it was possible to buy a 3.4Ghz sandy bridge machine. In 2020 it was still possible to buy a 3.4 Ghz machine. But you know what changed? IPC. Looking at "clock speed" and "how much RAM" is irrelevant. Look at instead how much IPC gain there has been, how much faster all processes can be done, how much faster the memory sub systems are. And that is ignoring parallel computing and core counts.

This is also ignoring that you can buy an M2 with 24GB of RAM. You can't buy a PS4 with 24GB of RAM.

This is some of the most ignorant statements you have made and also one of the worst arguments you've made. For a computer expert you must not have looked at a single benchmark in the last 10 years.
People today can use a Core2Duo for daily tasks without issue.
Maybe Grandma can. I have a C2D mini on my desk next to me. I don't even want to browse on this. If your time is absolutely worthless, then yeah it's fine.
Now if you play games or do video editing, that's a different story.
Or use Google Chrome. Which can use 32+ GB of RAM. Or again, do any task in a reasonable time frame. I have access to another C2D in my house. Thankfully retired. To say that it's unpleasant to even use Hotmail and Facebook on would be an understatement. And that was basically all it was used for.

Even on hyper modern hardware, 4K editing is more than capable of bringing systems to their knees. Computers can't get fast enough soon enough. But I guess you live in a world where no one has anything meaningful to do.
Or fix it.

If you can fix a GPU like this, then you can fix a Mac. So problem solved then I guess! There should be ZERO complaints about "user replaceable parts" when your standard for component repair and replacement is this video.

Again, no one is doing this. Show me all the users here on the [H]ardforum, arguably the biggest computing nerds on the planet, that are doing this. Maybe 5? I bet in the entire US the population that are PC users and also fix graphics cards is less than 1/1000th of a single percent. That actually may be way too high when we start accounting for Grandma.
If you want to make an argument like this: show the numbers. Because it's absolute garbage. Your arguments are meaningless without numbers. Said in fewer words, all of those fixable GPU's ended up in the trash.
Lets look at valve's hardware survey to see what people do use on average. This is gaming so you're more likely to upgrade than someone who does spreadsheets and watches YouTube. Almost half are currently using 4 cores or 2 cores CPU's, which is safe to say isn't very modern. The GTX 1060 is still the most popular GPU,
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
This is also highly deceptive. You'd actually have to spend the time to look at the mean and median in hardware and not simply "the most used" (mode).

The most used core count processor is actually "6" at greater than 35%. If you look at both 2 core and 4 core cpu's combined that's roughly 30% of the market. Meaning the other 70% is 6 cores and above. Guess when 6 core processors became mainstream? About 4 years ago in 2018. I'm guessing at the 5 year obsolescence mark for all of those people, they'll move to 8-10 core machines. 8-core is currently sitting at >20%.
Going back to the 2 and 4 core count CPUs if you also look at clock speed there is a range from 1.4 all the way to the top. I'm more than willing to bet that the vast majority of those 2 and 4 core CPU's is found in a laptop that is also hanging around the 5 year mark.

Graphics is sitting very similarly. The top 60% of people are all using nVidia based graphics cards that costed them $200 or more. And inside of that top 60% a good chunk of them are new cards from this previous 3000 series generation such as the 3060 and 3070 in both Ti and regular variants as well as a strong showing also in laptop variants.

Steam hardware survey is also global. Meaning the lower end hardware is likely also skewed depending on location. I would bet if we only included the US and Europe the survey would skew to even newer hardware.

So you also don't know about stats or how to look at broad market categories either. When your "top card" is less than 8% of the market, bringing up that it's the most common is virtually meaningless. It makes far more sense to track age of hardware and cost of hardware at purchase. And again that would speak to people for the most part using their machines for 3-5 years and then getting something better. Something you have to deal with in order to have an argument.
as well as a good number of GTX cards which are currently 6 years old. So for gaming there's a lot of people still using relatively old hardware.
In the top 60% of cards there is no card that is older than 4 years other than the 1060. In the top 70% the only card that shows up is the RX580 and RX570 which account for less than 1.5% of users when combined. I'll also note that even that card just barely came out over 5 years ago. With the 1060 included it's still less than 10%. Any card that is older than 6 years is less than half of a percentage point, and even adding them altogether accounts for less than 5% of users. With the 1060 included maybe 14%. Feel free to check my math. Show me all the cards by their percentages that are so much older than 6 years though.

If anything what is more surprsing is all the laptop GPU's people are using, although I think at least some of the hardware survey is skewed by onboard APU's on processors, which also may contain a discrete GPU. Even still as we know, people replace their laptops every 3-5 years. The majority of all this Intel IGP hardware is less than 5 years old by wide margin.
Imagine what people are using when they don't care about gaming or intensive tasks?
Corporate flips their hardware every 3 years. Small businesses every 3-5.
Windows 11 also conveniently made a lot of hardware obsolete. And getting machines to operate at a basic level for office tasks takes more than you think.
We have two computers that we use to run our live streams at our church. And believe me when I say this software is as basic as it gets. One of them only has to run one piece of software: ProPresenter, which is basically just "fancy Powerpoint". It's a 3 year old machine. It was bought new, it was made from purchasing individual PC parts, exactly YOUR favorite way of doing everything. I want to drop kick this machine it's so slow and buggy.
The other machine is identical in terms of hardware and it has to run two pieces of software: OBS streaming to YouTube (meaning it doesn't even have to record this locally) and a browser Window. Neither machine is remotely pleasant to use.

You keep trying to talk down to me like I don't use or have never used PCs. I use them every week. I maintain my opinion of them specifically because I have so much experience with them. We could slowly try to replace things in these machines "part by part" but the reality is that's a waste of time. At minimum the motherboard, CPU, RAM, and PSU should all be replaced with much better hardware, which in reality is just buying a totally new machine. I'd be much happier with an M2 Mini when they come out next year. That machine will hum for much longer than any of these PC equivalents for a similar $1200 price. AND I could gurantee that it would be supported for 7 years (the irony of this thread). These PC's last less than 3.


PC's also make up for more than 90% of sales, and that's including servers.

SMH. That's literally what I'm saying. So that means PC manufacturers are the cause of the problems and THEY should ALL be the ones kept to the HIGHEST standard. Apple is doing far better than every PC manufacturer in regards to the environment and they're only a meager 10% of the market.
I listed literally all the ways that they are. Ways that PC manufacturers are not. I produced their environmental record report. You can't do that for a SINGLE PC COMPANY. Yet you want to hold Apple to a standard you don't hold a SINGLE PC company to. You're a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,548
This is deceptive. The whole point of your upgrade piece by piece mentality and your whole ship metaphor is that in actually you're still buying two PC's. You're just doing it part by part vs all at once.
Yes but in a much longer period of time. The rate of trash is going to be much slower.
Enthusiasts are replacing every part in their machine whether all at once or part by part on average every 4 years. The mega hobbyiests are doing it in less than 2 years. That is in fact the same rate as you would be buying an equivalent Mac.
Enthusiasts and mega hobbyists are not the majority. Most people on Steams Hardware survey are not upgrading their entire machines. If you're using a quad core or dual core CPU then you're 50% of the gamers on Steam. If you're using a GTX card, you're 50% of the gamers on Steam.
Either way you're buying two machines.
The math doesn't check out.
Secondly as we've seen in this thread Applecare coverage can be bought for 3 years. Software coverage is for 7 years. And repairs on all of those machines will have parts availability up to 7 years. Meaning all machines that require parts could be kept at minimum 7 years if you so desire with guaranteed software support. Just because YOU can't repair a Mac doesn't mean it goes in the trash either.
Because everyone buys Apple care. Meanwhile in Europe they require a minimum of 2 years warranty.
You talk about fixing your own video cards. No average user can do that,
Neither can I, but you can send it out to these people and they will fix it.
but all of them can take their hardware to a service center and get a fully operable machine in a reasonable time frame. In fact if people are capable of repairing a GPU, then they can fix a Mac. If that's your logic then problem solved.
Because Apple has a great history of repairing their products. Just make sure when you buy an Apple product that it was made by Apple.


Using a machine in 2022 with <16GB of RAM is painful for all but the most minimal and basic tasks. If you use Chrome I would say an 8GB machine is unusable. The M1 8GB is basically only usable NOT because 8GB is enough, but effectively because it's memory sub system and ability to cache to the harddrive is so fast that Apple could cheat extra performance that no PC without a custom ASIC and software can match.
Or more likely is that Apple is using the SSD to speed up applications on 8GB models with swap, and is wearing them out faster.

And similarly I would say no PC should be equipped with 8GB of RAM in 2022. Honestly I don't even think the M1/M2 should be equipped with 8GB of RAM in 2022.
I made a quick mention of Apple including only 8GB of ram in 2022 and you made a whole useless article about it. Moving on.
This is also ignoring that you can buy an M2 with 24GB of RAM. You can't buy a PS4 with 24GB of RAM.
If you're comparing a modern Apple product to the PS4's inability to upgrade ram, you are really reaching here.
If you can fix a GPU like this, then you can fix a Mac. So problem solved then I guess! There should be ZERO complaints about "user replaceable parts" when your standard for component repair and replacement is this video.
Keep in mind that the average PC users would just replace the card. Repairing is just the cheaper option. Apple though will fight to make sure repair shops can't have access to certain parts to repair Apple products. Apple is not a green company when they do stuff like this.
Again, no one is doing this. Show me all the users here on the [H]ardforum, arguably the biggest computing nerds on the planet, that are doing this. Maybe 5?
Why does this matter? They should be if they wanted to keep their broken GPU. This isn't a popularity contest.
The most used core count processor is actually "6" at greater than 35%. If you look at both 2 core and 4 core cpu's combined that's roughly 30% of the market.
cpu cares steam survey.png

Steam hardware survey is also global. Meaning the lower end hardware is likely also skewed depending on location. I would bet if we only included the US and Europe the survey would skew to even newer hardware.
Does the world not matter to you?
You keep trying to talk down to me like I don't use or have never used PCs.
XpBkhvt.jpg
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,667
Yes but in a much longer period of time. The rate of trash is going to be much slower.
I've outlined this twice. And you haven't read it twice. That's not what the market is doing.
Enthusiasts and mega hobbyists are not the majority.
Thank your finally acknowledging this. Which is why your dumb boat metaphor doesn’t work. Most people NEVER upgrade or repair their desktop PC in either RAM, CPU, or video card. The fact that the option exists for them to do so irrelevant if 90%+ never even open the side of their case.
Similarly the sales numbers showing that most PC sales are predominately laptops also seals this. But you refuse to address the fact that you are in fact talking about enthusiasts and outliers. NOT general consumers.

Consumers buy a new computer and dump their old one. Only enthusiasts do upgrades and repairs.
Most people on Steams Hardware survey are not upgrading their entire machines.
As you just layed out above, they are not the norm.
If you're using a quad core or dual core CPU then you're 50% of the gamers on Steam.
I outlined this math already. And you're not. They're slightly north of 37%. And I'd bet it's mostly laptops in 2022, not desktops. And again, it's a global survey and not a reflection of the US and Europe or Japan.

Proof, nearly the same percent or more are low clock speed CPU's that have not been found in desktop parts since before 2012. This is also evidence that most machines on Steam aren't even up-gradable. They're laptops.
Screen Shot 2022-11-08 at 5.59.59 AM.png

If you're using a GTX card, you're 50% of the gamers on Steam.
Well, probably more than that, the top 50% of cards are all 100% nVidia.
The math doesn't check out.
Except it does? I literally broke down half a dozen link that you ignored bringing up both buyer behavior AND the suggestion of professionals.
Because everyone buys Apple care. Meanwhile in Europe they require a minimum of 2 years warranty.
They don't have to. The point is you can fix your machine for a minimum of 7 years. That isn't in dispute.
Neither can I, but you can send it out to these people and they will fix it.
Great, sounds exactly like Apple.
Because Apple has a great history of repairing their products. Just make sure when you buy an Apple product that it was made by Apple.


Yes? If you buy an HP or DELL and stick your own graphics card in there and it has a problem, HP and DELL will not cover your card. That's literally the same thing.
If you put after market parts in your car, guess what?: Your warranty won't cover you there either. There is no world where that works.
This argument isn't based in reality like most of your arguments.

You like cute YouTube videos and anecdotal evidence. While not addressing the entire marketplace.
Or more likely is that Apple is using the SSD to speed up applications on 8GB models with swap, and is wearing them out faster.

We agree. Illustrating your concept of 8GB of RAM being the "standard" in 2022 as being absolutely wrong.
I made a quick mention of Apple including only 8GB of ram in 2022 and you made a whole useless article about it. Moving on.
Because it's relevant to your position that computing hasn't' moved forward in a decade. And that's a lie. Comparing a PS3 and an M1 was also incredibly dumb. But yeah, moving on.
If you're comparing a modern Apple product to the PS4's inability to upgrade ram, you are really reaching here.
Your argument again is predicated on what is necessary for people in 2022. And as we've illustrated 2-3 times above it's more than 8GB.
Keep in mind that the average PC users would just replace the card. Repairing is just the cheaper option. Apple though will fight to make sure repair shops can't have access to certain parts to repair Apple products. Apple is not a green company when they do stuff like this.
And then that graphics card ends up in the trash. You take your machine to Apple and they repair it. And the Apple parts get recycled in Texas. Which is way more green than any PC.
Why does this matter? They should be if they wanted to keep their broken GPU. This isn't a popularity contest.
Okay. So people can keep their broken Macs. What are you even arguing here? What is your point?
Screen Shot 2022-11-08 at 5.58.06 AM.png

Does the world not matter to you?
It clearly doesn't matter to you. You prefer PC manufacturers causing all the problems, not being green, throwing hardware in the trash, not holding any of them to any standards and then hypocritically expecting a company that is <10% of the market to be better even when they already are.
After being asked FOUR times you can't even produce an environmental report that's better. Because it doesn't exist.
Using memes rather than having a discussion is a good way to show that your argument doesn't have merit. This doesn't address any of the issues in your arguments, nor does it say anything to counter any of mine.
 
Last edited:
Top