Siding one way or another, does not change historical precedent or records of the same.
We're not about re-writing history for some other interests here; the facts remain over
several decades of use, published where (apparently) the modern consumerist buyer is
disinterested in researching detailed information that is not purely for pleasure or profit.
Of the 250 Macs I've owned (several obtained needing repair, troubleshooting, parts)
for fun and not profit, my experience with computers comes from the hardware repair
and installation (+troubleshooting) software across several generations of product.
So I as an interested party, have a love of learning not tethered to the Cloud as mine
predates the laziness awarded to those who arrived later in the technical era of life.
The patterns of how specifications and model numbers have varied over some time have
changed a little, but variations among the models within a series of build designs do not
change that much. Sometimes, a faster bus. A slightly faster CPU, or a minor tweak in
the design of the chassis where it was done nearly mid-stream in a build series.
Most of these issues surrounding posts in at least two threads on the same topic, arrive
at a believe a problem exists when all the reality really is, involved one of several minor
changes in the greater build design model. There aren't any 'year-specific' model builds.
There are Early/Mid/Late. And the Early usually means the prior year date, until the date
of the Mid series. Then the first (Early) series has a conclusion, which makes next or Mid
series (usually both dates in the Mid are of the same year, not always) valid. Until there
is an end to the Early, there is no Mid. Sometimes a major revision presses the scheme
to evolve a new series, so that model build group is superseded by a newer one. That
one would start with an Early, though it may also be of the Previous Year date.
This is how it works. Some automobile makers have a number plate you can read, not
just a bar coded sticker and a VIN, where you see the Month/Year of the build. This
does make a difference in parts and certain service manuals. Same with Early 2014 vs
Late 2013; to those who know the technical issues, where a revision resulted in a change
of process, procedure, design, or other specification configuration, or service process.
The overall information, like in a scientific process, has certain words and meanings, so
if that is lost on a non-technical audience, you are stuck with comparing a January 2003
Chevy Impala with an October 2004. A brochure may suggest the newer one has special
features, not touted in the older one, maybe a new color of paint. A newer MRSP? Maybe.
So the argument on the basis of previously published patterns of knowledge in a database
referenced by hobbyists, professional product users, and some laypersons alike, is null...
And there could be even more than that involved. But generally is isn't that complex. LOL!
I want a new pair of shoes and I go to the megacomplex of shoes, get a box that looks like
it has the display pair inside it, my size numbers match those on the box, and I take it home.
Should I wear them a month or maybe a year, then think they weren't "new enough" after I
find a tiny sticker inside the box, or the green anti-fungal agent packet, with a date on it?
Almost petty. And that's my opinion based on a few decades of detailed observation. If you
want it simpler, try that shoe comparison. Criteria for quality varies, your mileage may vary.
Anyway, there is a bit of humor in this to me. I read the small print, first. Always...
That way I get no remorse after a purchase, I then may not even commit to make.
Good luck & happy computing! 🙂
