From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> writes:

On 2025-02-04 19:45:54 +0000, Bud Frede said:

Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:

Or, did Apple just copy what others already pioneered?
Some might say earbuds but Apple was fourth in line to release
them.
Others may say BT trackers, but Apple was 8 years behind the Dash.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=18907&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#18907>
Others may say ARM technology or CPUs, but there are so many
companies who
pioneered CPUs before Apple even existed, that argument is patently absurd. >> Apple has a long history with ARM, going back to the Newton.

This is not a question of which is better but a question of who was first. >> I think that Apple has innovated over the years, but I'm not keeping

track of it. I like macOS and find it to be a comfortable place to work
in. It offers support for many mainstream apps, as well as being UNIX.
To be honest, your question just seems like a lead-up to some kind
of
pissing contest, and that's quite boring.

Plus, being "first" is usually not the best anyway. Apple tends to
wait and then release a product that is far better designed (power
button on the bottom of the new Mac Mini being one of their mis-steps)
and actually works properly ... and then the lazy companies like

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch. My M1 Mini is fine for now and maybe when the time comes
to replace it I'll have other options.

If you want to pick on a company that hasn't done anything for the
tech industry, the Microsoft is a much better target. Everything they
do is abysmally bad copies of someone else's work, usually bought up
or stolen. They have never "innovated" anything in their entire
existence ... other than perhaps the biggest mass con in getting
management fools to buy into Windows.

They've "innovated" at being the best platform to run malware on. :-)

I'm not a fan of Microsoft or their products and services. However, the widespread use of DOS and then Windows did mean that PC hardware became
more capable and more affordable at a rapid pace. Lots of people using DOS/Windows means lots of companies selling computers to run those, and
lots of companies making parts to build those computers.

To some extent that led to Apple being able to use things like PCI,
Intel CPUs, etc. At one time Apple used their own buses, CPUs that
weren't mainstream, SCSI, etc. They also had their own connectors for
said SCSI and their monitors, networking... Both Sun and Apple were
similar in this respect.

Then the PC technologies became good enough and both Sun and Apple
switched to some of them.

We can see this with USB too. Firewire was clearly superior and that's
why Apple provided it for some uses. Then the widespread use of USB in
the industry improved USB and Apple stopped supplying Firewire. (I'm not
sure that Apple alone would have been enough to support all of these improvements by the many companies involved in USB.)

Another dig at Microsoft - they serve as a good example of how not to do things. macOS shines in comparison. So does iOS. :-)

Microsoft has sold a lot of product, and there are a lot of people using
their software and services. That's success by some metrics and I think
it has been good for the tech industry in some ways.

If nothing else, all of this commerce in PC hardware has meant that I
can buy a very nice PC to run Linux on for not much money. That's of
benefit to me since I like both macOS and Linux.
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-02-26 09:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

Yeah... ...I really don't get this gripe.

I leave my computer on at all times. Why on earth would I want to wait
for it to start up when I want to use it?
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

I turn off my computers when I'm not using them.

The way I have my computers arranged, it would be difficult to reach a
power button on the bottom of the Mini. (Too bad power buttons on the
keyboard don't seem to be a thing anymore.)

I know it's nit-picking, but I just prefer the older, larger Mini case
format over the new, small one. :-)
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:

On 2025-02-26 09:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough
to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

Yeah... ...I really don't get this gripe.

I leave my computer on at all times. Why on earth would I want to wait
for it to start up when I want to use it?

Modern Macs start up quite fast. That's not an issue for me.

I also don't like leaving things on when I don't have to.

It seems that my usage habits are different than yours, and that's
ok. :-)

--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-03-20 06:23, Bud Frede wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:

On 2025-02-26 09:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough
to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

Yeah... ...I really don't get this gripe.

I leave my computer on at all times. Why on earth would I want to wait
for it to start up when I want to use it?

Modern Macs start up quite fast. That's not an issue for me.

I also don't like leaving things on when I don't have to.

It seems that my usage habits are different than yours, and that's
ok. :-)

Of course it's "ok"...

...but seriously: a sleeping Mac is for all intents and purposes off.
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:

On 2025-03-20 06:23, Bud Frede wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:

On 2025-02-26 09:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the >>>>> power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough
to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

Yeah... ...I really don't get this gripe.

I leave my computer on at all times. Why on earth would I want to wait
for it to start up when I want to use it?

Modern Macs start up quite fast. That's not an issue for me.
I also don't like leaving things on when I don't have to.
It seems that my usage habits are different than yours, and that's
ok. :-)

Of course it's "ok"...

I was trying to say that I understand your viewpoint and am not trying
to be combative. Some people here in the past have seemed to be spoiling
for a fight, so I guess I'm gun-shy. :-)





--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-03-20 13:18:36 +0000, Bud Frede said:

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

I turn off my computers when I'm not using them.

Me too.

The way I have my computers arranged, it would be difficult to reach a
power button on the bottom of the Mini.

There is a hub device you can buy which sits underneath the new Mac
Mini and has a notch cutout to make accessing the Mac Mini's
powerbutton easier. That is an extra expesnse, but given the sheer lack
of ports on Apple devices these days, many users will probably need a
hub of some sort.

(Too bad power buttons on the keyboard don't seem to be a thing anymore.)

Yep. That was very useful for powering up my old PowerMac G3.

I know it's nit-picking, but I just prefer the older, larger Mini case
format over the new, small one. :-)

There was no real reason or need for Apple to make is smaller.

Although the new model has a smaller footprint, it is taller, so that
means it would not fit under my screen like the old one does. At best I
would either have to raise the screen or put a new Mac Mini on its side between the screen and the printer ... that would make accessing the ridiculously placed power button easier.

There is the bonus of the two ports on the front of the new model, just
a pity neither is USB-A for easily plugging in a USB stick.

Thankfully I don't need to upgrade anyway since this old Mac Mini still
works perfectly well.

--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-03-20 13:23:41 +0000, Bud Frede said:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:

On 2025-02-26 09:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough
to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

Yeah... ...I really don't get this gripe.

I leave my computer on at all times. Why on earth would I want to wait
for it to start up when I want to use it?

Modern Macs start up quite fast. That's not an issue for me.

I also don't like leaving things on when I don't have to.

It seems that my usage habits are different than yours, and that's
ok. :-)

To some degree it seems to be partly a generational thing.

The younger, wasteful and impatient generation can't be bothered
turning things off and on.

The older generation was brought up to turn things off to save
electricity and money. In these days of so many electronic gadgets and
gizmos, electricity companies are nearly always complaining about never
having enough power to meet demand, so simply turning off things you're
not using makes sense.


--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-03-20 19:56, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-03-20 13:23:41 +0000, Bud Frede said:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:

On 2025-02-26 09:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the >>>>> power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough
to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

Yeah... ...I really don't get this gripe.

I leave my computer on at all times. Why on earth would I want to wait
for it to start up when I want to use it?

Modern Macs start up quite fast. That's not an issue for me.

I also don't like leaving things on when I don't have to.

It seems that my usage habits are different than yours, and that's
ok. :-)

To some degree it seems to be partly a generational thing.

The younger, wasteful and impatient generation can't be bothered turning things off and on.

The older generation was brought up to turn things off to save
electricity and money. In these days of so many electronic gadgets and gizmos, electricity companies are nearly always complaining about never having enough power to meet demand, so simply turning off things you're
not using makes sense.

Not when they're using next to no power.

I want my computing devices to available to me when I want them.

If I'm spending pennies a day to ensure that, I'll happily do it.
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-03-20 19:49, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-03-20 13:18:36 +0000, Bud Frede said:

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes:

On 2025-02-25, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't really like the size of the M4 Minis nor the location of the
power switch.

Meh. I rarely need to press the power switch, and it's easy enough to
reach. Not a deal breaker at all.

I turn off my computers when I'm not using them.

Me too.

The way I have my computers arranged, it would be difficult to reach a
power button on the bottom of the Mini.

There is a hub device you can buy which sits underneath the new Mac Mini
and has a notch cutout to make accessing the Mac Mini's powerbutton
easier. That is an extra expesnse, but given the sheer lack of ports on Apple devices these days, many users will probably need a hub of some sort.

(Too bad power buttons on the keyboard don't seem to be a thing anymore.)

Yep. That was very useful for powering up my old PowerMac G3.

I know it's nit-picking, but I just prefer the older, larger Mini case
format over the new, small one. :-)

There was no real reason or need for Apple to make is smaller.

Although the new model has a smaller footprint, it is taller, so that
means it would not fit under my screen like the old one does. At best I would either have to raise the screen or put a new Mac Mini on its side between the screen and the printer ... that would make accessing the ridiculously placed power button easier.

There is the bonus of the two ports on the front of the new model, just
a pity neither is USB-A for easily plugging in a USB stick.

Thankfully I don't need to upgrade anyway since this old Mac Mini still works perfectly well.

An idling M4 Mini will draw 4 watts.

That's 8,766 kilowatt-hours a YEAR.

Check your local utility and see what that works out to be per day.

For me, that works out to less that 14¢ per day.

And that's not even SLEEPING!

When sleeping, the only reference I found suggests it uses 0.50W at 110V.

So divide by a factor of EIGHT.


--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2