All-in-One PCs

On 2016-02-03, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 16:43:34 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 03:43:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-02-02, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 2 Feb 2016 08:53:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

That's silly. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should consider
*both* when making a purchase, which gives you a better chance of coming
out ahead in the long run.

If you saw my workshop you would realise that I don't buy tools to
sell them. The only exception is where replacement is forced by
technical obsolescence.

Irrelevant to the discussion of computers, which some claim are "just
tools".

You seem determined to miss the point. Rephrasing:

I don't know about you but I buy computers for what they will do for
me *NOW* and not for whatever diminished value they might fetch at
some distant time in the future.

And I purchase with *both* in mind. There's no reason you can't do both at
the time of purchase.

Of course you bear these things in mind but, for most people,
differences in resale value several years in the future carry very
little weight at the the present. At best, it's probably a
tie-breaker.

Most veteran Mac users bear it in mind, and most come out ahead because
of it. Every time I have purchased a new Mac at home during the past
decade, the price of the new machine was significantly offset by the
money I got from selling my previous machine. Last time, I got $1200 for
my old Mac, and all of that money went toward the cost of the new
machine that replaced it. That's definitely not a "tie breaker".

--
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

On 2016-02-03, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 17:42:13 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
PAS wrote:
On 2/3/2016 11:43 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

I don't know about you but I buy computers for what they will do for
me *NOW* and not for whatever diminished value they might fetch at
some distant time in the future.

And I purchase with *both* in mind. There's no reason you can't do both at
the time of purchase.

And there's no reason someone has to either.

Nobody says you have to maximize profit either; it's just smarter to do it.

And that's almost certainly done by maximising the utility of the
machine to you.

One way of doing that is by selling it for profit when you are done with
it. Or do you think profit is of no utility?

--
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

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 18:46:21 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Jolly Roger:

That's silly. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should
consider *both* when making a purchase, which gives you a better
chance of coming out ahead in the long run.

If you saw my workshop you would realise that I don't buy tools to
sell them. The only exception is where replacement is forced by
technical obsolescence.

Incidentally, buying a new computer is mostly done due to technical
obsolescence.

Yep.

Either that or a new ambition.

Technical obsolescence is largely a myth.

Most people buy a new computer (or mobile phone, or TV, or car, etc.)
for one of two reasons:

- the old computer breaks down or is stolen,

- they simply want to have a new toy even though their
old computer is still perfectly fine.

For businesses there's a third reason of being able to use new
purchases as tax write-offs so they pay appear to have made less profit
and therefore pay less tax.

On 2/3/16 2:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:33:35 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 2/3/2016 3:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip
... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.
How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different?
The engines are the same. There may be slight tweaks in different
countries to satisfy emissions rules and some models are only available
in some countries (e.g. a 1.8litre model may be sold in Europe, but the
New Zealand distributor doesn't think it will sell well here, so only
gets the 2.0litre version).



Is the market in New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique
engine?
With only about 4million people, including those who don't drive and
children, they aren't going to bother making a specific engine - even
if Honda had 100% of the New Zealand market the number is too small to
bother with.

In fact, in recent years a lot of the car sold here are actually
second-hand models imported from Japan, so if there was a specific
engine type it's more likely to be Japanese.

Based on what you've said, the Hondas sold as new in New Zealand should
not have any different oil specified by Honda than the ones sold
elsewhere.

Honda does not specify just the one variety of oil. Different models
have different requirements.

The only exception I can think of is for fuel efficiency.
Engines are being designed to use very light-weight oils in order to
gain the highest fuel efficiency they can. Both of my Subarus have the
same 2.5L engine, a 2014 Subaru Forester and a 2015 Subaru Outback. The
oil specified by Subaru is 0W-20 synthetic. I had a 2005 Chrysler 300C
with a 5.7L V-8 that also was specified for the same oil.

0W-20 synthetic is only the beginning of the specification.


That's true... ...but there is also an end to the specification.

I would be large that it's an SAE spec.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:39:35 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 18:46:21 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
Jolly Roger:

That's silly. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should
consider *both* when making a purchase, which gives you a better
chance of coming out ahead in the long run.

If you saw my workshop you would realise that I don't buy tools to
sell them. The only exception is where replacement is forced by
technical obsolescence.

Incidentally, buying a new computer is mostly done due to technical
obsolescence.

Yep.

Either that or a new ambition.

Technical obsolescence is largely a myth.

Still have a source for those 8" diskettes for your Apple II?

Yep, ask in the Apple II newsgroup and I think someone there said they
had some a while back. :-p

On 4 Feb 2016 00:38:53 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-02-03, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 17:42:13 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
PAS wrote:
On 2/3/2016 11:43 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

I don't know about you but I buy computers for what they will do for
me *NOW* and not for whatever diminished value they might fetch at
some distant time in the future.

And I purchase with *both* in mind. There's no reason you can't do both at
the time of purchase.

And there's no reason someone has to either.

Nobody says you have to maximize profit either; it's just smarter to do it.

And that's almost certainly done by maximising the utility of the
machine to you.

One way of doing that is by selling it for profit when you are done with
it. Or do you think profit is of no utility?

It's fine by me if that's your primary purpose in buying a computer.

As I've said before, resale value years in the future is a secondary
consideration for most people. I accept that it may not be for you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:39:35 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On 3 Feb 2016 18:46:21 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Jolly Roger:

That's silly. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should
consider *both* when making a purchase, which gives you a better
chance of coming out ahead in the long run.

If you saw my workshop you would realise that I don't buy tools to
sell them. The only exception is where replacement is forced by
technical obsolescence.

Incidentally, buying a new computer is mostly done due to technical
obsolescence.

Yep.

Either that or a new ambition.

Technical obsolescence is largely a myth.

Most people buy a new computer (or mobile phone, or TV, or car, etc.)
for one of two reasons:

- the old computer breaks down or is stolen,

- they simply want to have a new toy even though their
old computer is still perfectly fine.

For businesses there's a third reason of being able to use new
purchases as tax write-offs so they pay appear to have made less profit
and therefore pay less tax.

They _should_ pay less tax as they _have_ made less profit.

That's not a good way to get rich.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Technical obsolescence is largely a myth.

Still have a source for those 8" diskettes for your Apple II?

the apple ii did not use 8" floppy disks.

and it's not as if those who still use an apple ii need to buy more
anyway.

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:27:34 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/3/16 2:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:33:35 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 2/3/2016 3:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip
... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.
How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different?
The engines are the same. There may be slight tweaks in different
countries to satisfy emissions rules and some models are only available
in some countries (e.g. a 1.8litre model may be sold in Europe, but the
New Zealand distributor doesn't think it will sell well here, so only
gets the 2.0litre version).



Is the market in New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique
engine?
With only about 4million people, including those who don't drive and
children, they aren't going to bother making a specific engine - even
if Honda had 100% of the New Zealand market the number is too small to
bother with.

In fact, in recent years a lot of the car sold here are actually
second-hand models imported from Japan, so if there was a specific
engine type it's more likely to be Japanese.

Based on what you've said, the Hondas sold as new in New Zealand should
not have any different oil specified by Honda than the ones sold
elsewhere.

Honda does not specify just the one variety of oil. Different models
have different requirements.

The only exception I can think of is for fuel efficiency.
Engines are being designed to use very light-weight oils in order to
gain the highest fuel efficiency they can. Both of my Subarus have the
same 2.5L engine, a 2014 Subaru Forester and a 2015 Subaru Outback. The
oil specified by Subaru is 0W-20 synthetic. I had a 2005 Chrysler 300C
with a 5.7L V-8 that also was specified for the same oil.

0W-20 synthetic is only the beginning of the specification.


That's true... ...but there is also an end to the specification.

I would be large that it's an SAE spec.

Or:
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers (STLE)
National Lubricating Grease Institute (NLGI)
Independent Lubricant Manufacturer Association (ILMA)
European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)
Japanese Automotive Standards Organization (JASO)
Petroleum Packaging Council (PPC)

Not to mention Russian and Chinese organisations.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:28:36 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/3/2016 3:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip
... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.
How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different?
The engines are the same. There may be slight tweaks in different
countries to satisfy emissions rules and some models are only available
in some countries (e.g. a 1.8litre model may be sold in Europe, but the
New Zealand distributor doesn't think it will sell well here, so only
gets the 2.0litre version).


Is the market in New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique
engine?
With only about 4million people, including those who don't drive and
children, they aren't going to bother making a specific engine - even
if Honda had 100% of the New Zealand market the number is too small to
bother with.

In fact, in recent years a lot of the car sold here are actually
second-hand models imported from Japan, so if there was a specific
engine type it's more likely to be Japanese.

Based on what you've said, the Hondas sold as new in New Zealand should
not have any different oil specified by Honda than the ones sold
elsewhere.
snip

The only difference would be in the oil brand they specify since some
brands available in American or Japan won't be available here. Even
then the brand is irrelevant and often simply down to dealer / repair
centre preference or pricing deals - it's the type (thickness, etc.) of
oil that's important.

Also the base oil and additives.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens