All-in-One PCs

On 4 Feb 2016 04:25:35 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

I didn't say it was my primary purpose. Again, there's no reason you can't
do both at the time of purchase: purchase a machine that does what you need
done now, and purchase a computer that will give you a good return when you
are likely to be ready to replace it later on.

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.

Actually that's not what you said at all. Your u indicated that it wasn't
even a second consideration. Specifically, you said you "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" - your words, not mine.

You are worse than nospam! I had previously made the statement "I
don't know about you but I buy tools 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 had to explain it's applicability to
you by rephrasing it as "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".

Rephrasing it once again, in the (fading) hope you will get the point:
"I don't know about you but my primary concern when I buy computers is
what they will do for me *NOW* and not for whatever diminished value
they might fetch at some distant time in the future".

When I mentioned I purchase with *both* in mind, you responded, "there's no
reason someone has to". Now you are changing your tune.

Oh single-minded difficult twit! Can your brain hold more than one
idea at a time?

Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive - it's possible and beneficial to
purchase a machine that does what you need now AND will sell well later on
when you want to replace it with another one. You come out ahead of you do
this, because the cost of the replacement machine is offset by the money
you gain by selling the old machine. And the fact is Macs offer a
consistently greater resale value than the average PC.

Well, if that's all you want out of a computer - goodie for you!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:22:09 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

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.

Many companies will reach the end of their financial year and purposely
buy new equipment they don't really need just to lower their taxes.

That's a timing issue. They do that because they can claim a full
year's depreciation even though they have owned it but a few
weeks/days by the end of the financial year.

Similarly, some non-profit community organisations sometimes receive
funding that has to be used by a certain date, so will again buy
equipment they don't really need just to spend the money. One place I
worked for years ago did that to buy a colour laser printer, only to
later find they couldn't really afford the toner cartridges so made
people only print in black unless absolutely necessary.

Now that's **** hot financial management.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:25:02 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:29:54 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:18:08 +1300, 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.

Conclusions are not for leaping at.

There is no New Zealand-specific engine.

That's why they need the build-number when ordering parts.

Your dealer / parts centre is scamming you. I've never had to supply
"build-number" to get any parts, simply the make, model, and year.

Depends what you are buying.

Your supplier may also be scamming you. Parts installed in new cars
supplied to Australia/New Zealand are in many cases stronger than
parts supplied to (say) Thailand. That does not mean that cheaper (and
flimsier) parts intended for Thailand cannot be installed on your car.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 21:32:51 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-04 05:25:02 +0000, Your Name said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:29:54 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:18:08 +1300, 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.

Conclusions are not for leaping at.

There is no New Zealand-specific engine.

That's why they need the build-number when ordering parts.

Your dealer / parts centre is scamming you. I've never had to supply
"build-number" to get any parts, simply the make, model, and year.

All the required info for any particular model should be in the VIN number.

That's what I meant when I wrote "build-number".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:45:16 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

In article 201602032132513009-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-02-04 05:25:02 +0000, Your Name said:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:29:54 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:18:08 +1300, 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.

Conclusions are not for leaping at.

There is no New Zealand-specific engine.

That's why they need the build-number when ordering parts.

Your dealer / parts centre is scamming you. I've never had to supply
"build-number" to get any parts, simply the make, model, and year.

All the required info for any particular model should be in the VIN number.

You don't even need that. I always just go in and say something like
"Have you got a goobernut for a 2006 VW Golf", or whatever.

And the relevance of that to a discussion of Honda is ... ?

Even then it can be largely irrelevant due to so many car companies
sharing "platforms" these days - a part for a Ford may well be the same
as one for a Mazda, with one being cheaper than the other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/4/16 12:46 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:25:02 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:29:54 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:18:08 +1300, 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.

Conclusions are not for leaping at.

There is no New Zealand-specific engine.

That's why they need the build-number when ordering parts.

Your dealer / parts centre is scamming you. I've never had to supply
"build-number" to get any parts, simply the make, model, and year.

Depends what you are buying.

Your supplier may also be scamming you. Parts installed in new cars
supplied to Australia/New Zealand are in many cases stronger than
parts supplied to (say) Thailand. That does not mean that cheaper (and
flimsier) parts intended for Thailand cannot be installed on your car.


Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that Honda keeps two different
supply chains?

On 2/4/2016 1:44 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 4 Feb 2016 06:20:14 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Your Name:
Many companies will reach the end of their financial year and
purposely buy new equipment they don't really need just to lower
their taxes.

There is no way to do that so the reduction in taxes is greater than
the amount spent. So, the company is reducing their present cash
position by more than they would reduce their future cash position
if they paid the tax.

What a company will do is advance the decision to purchase new
equipment that they know they will need in the coming year even if
they don't need it at the time the purchase is made. They are not
buying equipment that will not be needed.

Well, I think there's a fair bit of companies out there that think they'd
rather spend the money on equipment than pay it on taxes. So they would get a
Mac Pro instead of an iMac even though they don't need it. They'll get two 40"
4K sirens instead of two 30" HD screens etc etc.

I've done this on occasion, where the year has been so good that a lot of the
profits would just vanish into taxes unless I lower my result.

I don't understand that thinking, and mine was a privately owned
corporation.

A taxable profit of $100 can result, in the US, of a tax of $35. This
reduces the profit to the owner to $65. (The US corporate tax rate is
between 15% and 39%, and there are various ways to hold the tax bite
down)

Spending that $50 of that $100 on a new Widget reduces the taxable
profit to $50 and the tax is $17.50. The profit to the owner is now
$32.50.

If the Widget isn't really needed, what's the benefit? If the Widget
is not really needed, but is something that is nice to have, the owner
is still paying a price to get it.

The owner of the corporation, incidentally, has to pay personal income
taxes on that $65 or $32.50 if he takes it out of the business.

Of course, all above is in the US. The tax system in Sweden may be
different. If what the politicians say is true, we have the highest
corporate tax rate of the major industrial nations.

(c.s.m.s. deleted. This is not a Mac subject.)


You have no idea how many times I have had to explain that concept to
clients. I could almost see a light bulb go off when they get the point.
However, if the widget is actually needed, then the discussion would
switch to timing and rent-lease-purchase.




--
PeterN

On 2/3/2016 5:09 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.

Yes. 0W-20 is specified as the optimal type of oil to use but other
weights can also be used as the manual states. The lighter weight of
the 0W-20 gets the best fuel economy but I suspect using a heavier
weight oil like a 5W-20 wouldn't affect fuel economy much at all, if it
would even be measurable by the car owner.

On 2/3/2016 5:27 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:18:01 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 2/3/2016 3:56 PM, Tony Cooper 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. 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.
When I purchased a Cadillac some years ago, the dealer placed a logo
on the trunk lid with the dealer's name, and added a license plate
bracket with the dealer's name.

I told them I didn't want the trunk-lid dealer logo unless they were
willing to pay me to advertise their dealership. I thought it was
ugly.

They said removing it would void my dealer warranty (not the Cadillac
warranty) and service benefits (free loaner when serviced, free car
washes) and would not remove it. I removed it myself (heat gun to
loosen the adhesive and a solvent) that day. I replaced the license
plate bracket.

Never had a problem when I took it in for service, and got a loaner
car and car wash each time.


The dealer lied to you, it seems. It's rare but car dealers lie

What did their "dealer warranty" offer?
As I said above, free loaner vehicles when mine was being serviced and
a free carwash anytime I came by. They also offered pick-up/drop-off
service for those who worked in the downtown area.

Having a pick-up and drop-off service is convenient. The dealership I
bought my cars from has Monday-Saturday service. Only certain types of
work is done on Saturday, nothing major, but they do all maintenance,
inspections, and minor repairs. No appointment is required. I
generally don't use a dealership for repairs out-of-warranty but I do
get three years/36,000 mile free maintenance on each car. I go on
Saturdays to get the work done. They also do free inspections for as
long as you own the car, an inspection costs $40.00.

On 2/3/2016 7:38 PM, 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?


How do you manage to make a profit when you sell your old Mac for less
than you paid for it?