Re: Lytro

[Dave]

> Now, my project:

> At least once a year my wife and I go to Manhattan...to have fun of
> the streets and get random and candid shots of people.

> Even with my good, auto-focus camera, the shots happen so fast
> most of them end up focusing on something other than what I was trying
> for. With the Lytro at least I should have the ability to focus "after
> the fact" and expect to get a better number of decent shots.

> Anyway once I get the results I'll post back here
> and all those who are curious will find out what the camera can really do.


That's what I miss most about cities- people pics. It looks like the unit will be
perfect for this type-- forgiving for those off-the-cuff shots.

Looking forward to seeing what you produce!

Also looking forward to what becomes of this technology.

Me, I just spent $400+ on a new washing machine and a disappointing
spin on the computer where several of my DSLR shots were a tiny shade
OOF from last week's people shoot.

[tony cooper]

If you like to photograph interesting people, now is the time to come
Florida. Bike Week!

Shot Sunday:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/i-MNZChfT/0/XL/2012-03-11-98-XL.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[philo]

Latest update:

My Lytro is scheduled to arrive on Monday.

I have a friend who is willing to let me load the software on his Mac
and test out the camera.

If it works well I will probably end up buying a Mac
as I doubt I'd be able to wait for the Windows software to arrive .
(I am a Linux user and there is no likelihood software will be avail for
that at all)

[PeterN]

Getting ancy <G>
Let us know,


--
Peter

[James Silverton]

On 3/18/2012 3:00 PM, philo wrote:

Please keep us (especially me :-)) informed. I'm in the same position as
you and don't want to make a complete switch to Apple even if I *can*
use Macs owned by by relatives.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 02:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
> On 3/18/2012 3:00 PM, philo wrote:
>> On
>>

>> Latest update:
>>
>> My Lytro is scheduled to arrive on Monday.
>>
>> I have a friend who is willing to let me load the software on his Mac
>> and test out the camera.
>>
>> If it works well I will probably end up buying a Mac
>> as I doubt I'd be able to wait for the Windows software to arrive .
>> (I am a Linux user and there is no likelihood software will be avail for
>> that at all)
>
>
> Getting ancy <G>
> Let us know,
>
>

As soon as I have results I will post back and let everyone know
and show some sample photos

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-03-18 15:00 , philo wrote:
>
> My Lytro is scheduled to arrive on Monday.
>
> I have a friend who is willing to let me load the software on his Mac
> and test out the camera.
>
> If it works well I will probably end up buying a Mac
> as I doubt I'd be able to wait for the Windows software to arrive .
> (I am a Linux user and there is no likelihood software will be avail for
> that at all)

I look forward to it. Where was your SI contribution, by the way?
(Never too late).


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 03:21 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/18/2012 3:00 PM, philo wrote:
>> On 0
>>
>>

>> Latest update:
>>
>> My Lytro is scheduled to arrive on Monday.
>>
>> I have a friend who is willing to let me load the software on his Mac
>> and test out the camera.
>>
>> If it works well I will probably end up buying a Mac
>> as I doubt I'd be able to wait for the Windows software to arrive .
>> (I am a Linux user and there is no likelihood software will be avail for
>> that at all)
>
> Please keep us (especially me :-)) informed. I'm in the same position as
> you and don't want to make a complete switch to Apple even if I *can*
> use Macs owned by by relatives.
>

I was so anxious to try out a Lytro I bought one even though I do not
own a new enough Mac. I have an iMac that someone gave me...but the OS
is way too old to run the Lytro software. My main machines run Linux
(but I do have an XP machine) and my wife uses XP_64bit

I do not mind spending money but am really having problems
psychologically , with the thought of buying a new machine. I always
make them myself or else fix up old junk people give me.

Now, with the camera coming on Monday my mind actually started to work
so I posted on Facebook knowing that one of my friends must have a new
enough Mac and also curious about the new Lytro.

Now, if the Lytro does the job for me I probably will actually just buy
a Mini-Mac. If I get it I'll replace an old laptop in my house that has
a permanent place on a desk. (The battery died five years ago)

There is also a possibility that if my friend does not mind me coming
over once or twice a month, I may wait for Lytro to come out with the
Windows software.

[Alan Browne]

You can likely pick up a cheapish ($350 - $400) mac mini from craigslist
(just make sure it's an intel version). With that and a cheap screen,
keyboard and mouse you're good to go and you can maintain your Windows
habit.

When the windows v. comes out, sell the mac mini on craigslist (after
copying off the images of course...).

[philo]

I've looked on both Craig's list and eBay and a new Mini-Mac costs only
slightly more than a used one...so if I get one I figure I might was
well get a new one. If I do get it...it will be replacing a 12 year old
machine

[Alan Browne]

You won't know what hit you!

They do hold their value...

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 03:58 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-03-18 15:00 , philo wrote:
>>
>> My Lytro is scheduled to arrive on Monday.
>>
>> I have a friend who is willing to let me load the software on his Mac
>> and test out the camera.
>>
>> If it works well I will probably end up buying a Mac
>> as I doubt I'd be able to wait for the Windows software to arrive .
>> (I am a Linux user and there is no likelihood software will be avail for
>> that at all)
>
> I look forward to it. Where was your SI contribution, by the way? (Never
> too late).
>
>

What's an "SI" contribution?

[nospam]

In article <eqWdnUXUB9sDyfvS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> When the windows v. comes out, sell the mac mini on craigslist (after
> copying off the images of course...).

or just reboot it into windows.

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 05:00 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-03-18 17:48 , philo wrote:
>> On 03/18/2012 04:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> You can likely pick up a cheapish ($350 - $400) mac mini from craigslist
>>> (just make sure it's an intel version). With that and a cheap screen,
>>> keyboard and mouse you're good to go and you can maintain your Windows
>>> habit.
>>>
>>> When the windows v. comes out, sell the mac mini on craigslist (after
>>> copying off the images of course...).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've looked on both Craig's list and eBay and a new Mini-Mac costs only
>> slightly more than a used one...so if I get one I figure I might was
>> well get a new one. If I do get it...it will be replacing a 12 year old
>> machine
>
> You won't know what hit you!
>
> They do hold their value...
>

I am sure that if I am "forced" into buying a Mac
there will be no complaints!

[philo]

I know a Mac can run Windows
but I am not a Windows user.

A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since

[nospam]

In article <jk5nph$pit$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, philo <ph...@none.inv>

wrote:

> >> When the windows v. comes out, sell the mac mini on craigslist (after
> >> copying off the images of course...).
> >
> > or just reboot it into windows.
>
> I know a Mac can run Windows
> but I am not a Windows user.
>
> A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since

then you will like a mac since os x is unix underneath, everything you
do on linux will work natively, plus there's a lot of mac apps
available too.

[Alan Browne]

http://www.pbase.com/shootin

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Mandate just ending:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/work

(But as I'm a softie you're welcome to submit a day or so late).

[philo]

yes. I have fooled around a bit with an old iMac someone gave me and
I kind of like it.


I have found this to be rather valuable

http://www.finkproject.org/

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 05:44 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-03-18 18:21 , philo wrote:
>> On 03/18/2012 03:58 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-18 15:00 , philo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My Lytro is scheduled to arrive on Monday.
>>>>
>>>> I have a friend who is willing to let me load the software on his Mac
>>>> and test out the camera.
>>>>
>>>> If it works well I will probably end up buying a Mac
>>>> as I doubt I'd be able to wait for the Windows software to arrive .
>>>> (I am a Linux user and there is no likelihood software will be avail
>>>> for
>>>> that at all)
>>>
>>> I look forward to it. Where was your SI contribution, by the way? (Never
>>> too late).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What's an "SI" contribution?
>
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
>
> Mandate just ending:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/work
>
> (But as I'm a softie you're welcome to submit a day or so late).
>
>

Duh I guess I should have figured that out since I had previously looked
there.

I'll see if I have anything

thanks

[Ray Fischer]

Shrug. I have a Mac that's set up to do dual boot (Mac OS or Win 7)
or for some hit in speed I can run both at the same time using VMWare
Fusion. The latter takes a big chunk of memory but works.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 06:13 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> philo<ph...@none.inv> wrote:
>> On 03/18/2012 05:00 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-18 17:48 , philo wrote:
>>>> On 03/18/2012 04:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> You won't know what hit you!
>>>
>>> They do hold their value...
>>
>> I am sure that if I am "forced" into buying a Mac
>> there will be no complaints!
>
> Shrug. I have a Mac that's set up to do dual boot (Mac OS or Win 7)
> or for some hit in speed I can run both at the same time using VMWare
> Fusion. The latter takes a big chunk of memory but works.
>

I'm familiar with virtual machines
but the guest OS always suffers a performance hit
so generally do not use them

[nospam]

In article <jk5r1n$1km$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, philo <ph...@none.inv>
wrote:

> I'm familiar with virtual machines
> but the guest OS always suffers a performance hit
> so generally do not use them

it's negligible.

[Ray Fischer]

They both suffer some performance hit. You won't run games on
either OS, but for most apps it works fine and is more convenient
than rebooting your system.

[philo]

On 03/18/2012 06:30 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> philo<ph...@none.inv> wrote:
>> On 03/18/2012 06:13 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> philo<ph...@none.inv> wrote:
>>>> On 03/18/2012 05:00 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-03-18 17:48 , philo wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/18/2012 04:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You won't know what hit you!
>>>>>
>>>>> They do hold their value...
>>>>
>>>> I am sure that if I am "forced" into buying a Mac
>>>> there will be no complaints!
>>>
>>> Shrug. I have a Mac that's set up to do dual boot (Mac OS or Win 7)
>>> or for some hit in speed I can run both at the same time using VMWare
>>> Fusion. The latter takes a big chunk of memory but works.
>>
>> I'm familiar with virtual machines
>> but the guest OS always suffers a performance hit
>> so generally do not use them
>
> They both suffer some performance hit. You won't run games on
> either OS, but for most apps it works fine and is more convenient
> than rebooting your system.
>

I use removable drive kits

I must have over twenty of them between my three main machines

(yep I am a bit nuts)

[philo]

That has not been my experience
even on machines with a lot of RAM

[nospam]

In article <jk5rn7$37p$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, philo <ph...@none.inv>

wrote:

> >> I'm familiar with virtual machines
> >> but the guest OS always suffers a performance hit
> >> so generally do not use them
> >
> > it's negligible.
>
> That has not been my experience
> even on machines with a lot of RAM

it has been my experience as well as those who have done benchmarks.

[Savageduck]

A Mac can run Linux. So You might find the Mac Mini useful for more
than one thing.
Hell you might find the Mac just useful beyond processing Lytro images.
Many do.

http://mac.linux.be/
http://lowendmac.com/linux/index.shtml
http://www.sowerbutts.com/linux-mac-mini/
http://labjack.com/support/linux-and-mac-os-x-drivers

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2012031818245375249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since
>
> A Mac can run Linux. So You might find the Mac Mini useful for more
> than one thing.

there's very little point since most linux apps have already been
ported to os x, and then there are all the mac apps that are much
better.

> Hell you might find the Mac just useful beyond processing Lytro images.
> Many do.

very true.

[philo]

I'm not going to believe that unless you can substantiate your statement.

[Alan Browne]

On a recent Mac the guest runs smooth and fast under Fusion. I used to
run WinXP regularly, now a couple times a week at most. I used to have
Ubuntu installed as well and could run XP and Ubuntu at the same time as
OS X.

For that you just need more memory.

[philo]

Hmm. maybe my h/w is too old but it's moderately good

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[PeterN]

On 3/19/2012 6:51 PM, philo wrote:

>
> Hmm. maybe my h/w is too old but it's moderately good
>

Here are seven interesting new toys. They range in price from $299 to
......... Price unstated, but way beyond my budget.
there is even a decent explanation of how the Lytro works, in clear and
understandable English.

There is one capable of shooting a laser beam going through glass. Just
a glimpse of what the future may hold.

<http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/7-incredible-yet-real-high-tech-cameras>




--
Peter

[Ray Fischer]

Ah! That's an important clue!

If you're running a PowerPC Mac then yes, the performance hit is
pretty major. If you're running a newer Intel-based Mac then the
performance hit is minor because the Window code is run natively
and only the low-level hardware drivers need special handling.

If you have a newer Intel Mac then you can boot the machine into
Windows and have no performance impact whatever. In fact a new
iMac makes for a very nice and quick Windows machine.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jk5nph$pit$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, philo <ph...@none.inv>

>> I know a Mac can run Windows
>> but I am not a Windows user.

>> A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since

> then you will like a mac since os x is unix underneath,

Which means nothing at all.
First there are tons of different Unices. And while most of
them have similar tools, many don't have the GNU Tools ---
which are much more stable, feature rich and capable.

(Just for example, vendor "tail" programs do not necessarily
support displaying or watching the end of several files ...)

> everything you
> do on linux will work natively,

No, it won't. At best, it would need to be recompiled.

Unfortunately, that's not enough. The code needs to be
ported. Which has it's own problems (i.e. migration of bug
fixes and new features into the Mac OS code base, people
willing to care for the port etc.)

> plus there's a lot of mac apps
> available too.

There's more Windows apps than that. The poster has given
up Windows. So "lots of apps" isn't an argument.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> > A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since

>> A Mac can run Linux. So You might find the Mac Mini useful for more
>> than one thing.

> there's very little point since most linux apps have already been
> ported to os x, and then there are all the mac apps that are much
> better.

If you think that, stay with Apple.

However, others may think that free choice of hardware instead of
only Apple hardware (legal requirements) is valuable. Buying an
OS (and mayor upgrades every time) from Apple for each computer
one uses may not be what they want.

Then there's the fact that only some parts are Open Source.
Which may mean nothing to you, but a whole lot to other people.


Of course many Open Source programs are also available on Mac OS
X ... but often not in the newest version. It's not natively
supported --- you have to jump through some hoops --- and thus
more of a hassle.

And "OS X" is not a very google friendly term.

>> Hell you might find the Mac just useful beyond processing Lytro images.
>> Many do.

> very true.

Many Open Source programs are also available on Windows and
there are many, MANY times more apps for Windows than for
OS X.

-Wolfgang

[Andrew Reilly]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:58:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <jk5nph$pit$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, philo <ph...@none.inv>
>
>>> I know a Mac can run Windows but I am not a Windows user.
>
>>> A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever
>>> since
>
>> then you will like a mac since os x is unix underneath,
>
> Which means nothing at all.
> First there are tons of different Unices. And while most of them have
> similar tools, many don't have the GNU Tools --- which are much more
> stable, feature rich and capable.

Or gnarly, non-standard and buggy. There are all sorts.

> (Just for example, vendor "tail" programs do not necessarily support
> displaying or watching the end of several files ...)

OS X tail watches multiple files just fine. Looks exactly like FreeBSD
tail, which it probably is.

>> everything you do on linux will work natively,
>
> No, it won't. At best, it would need to be recompiled.

Which is the point of open source, right? What do you imagine would have
difficulty compiling? Only things I can think of are system management
utilities that do linux-specific things, and there are a few of them.

> Unfortunately, that's not enough. The code needs to be ported. Which
> has it's own problems (i.e. migration of bug fixes and new features into
> the Mac OS code base, people willing to care for the port etc.)

http://www.macports.org/

sudo port selfupdate; sudo port upgrade outdated

I believe that the fink project maintains a more debian-flavoured
repository. Macports is more FreeBSD-ports flavoured (both were written
by Jordan Hubbard), but has some significant differences.

I've nothing agains Linux. I run an up-to-date Ubuntu VM system because
(weirdly) there are commercially supported dev tools that run on Linux
but not OS X. It's failry nice. Ubuntu's binary updates save a lot of
time, compared to the source-mostly environment of OS X and FreeBSD. I
maintain several FreeBSD systems too, and I generally prefer those, for
complicated and mostly historical reasons.

I've not lacked for any open source tool since moving to OS X, which I
did several years ago (PowerPC timeframe) because I thought it the best
Unix workstation environment yet built. Opinions and motivations can
clearly differ. I can run ufraw and gimp, emacs and vim, but also
Lightroom, Aperture and NX2. The latter matter to me: I could never get
good colour or exposure from D700 files with ufraw.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

[nospam]

In article <o0h449-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang

Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> >> I know a Mac can run Windows
> >> but I am not a Windows user.
>
> >> A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since
>
> > then you will like a mac since os x is unix underneath,
>
> Which means nothing at all.
> First there are tons of different Unices. And while most of
> them have similar tools, many don't have the GNU Tools ---
> which are much more stable, feature rich and capable.
>
> (Just for example, vendor "tail" programs do not necessarily
> support displaying or watching the end of several files ...)

that only matters to unix geeks. nearly everyone who buys a mac doesn't
care about what 'tail' does (or even know what it means), however, for
those who do, it's already there and if it doesn't do exactly what they
want they can install a version that does.

> > everything you
> > do on linux will work natively,
>
> No, it won't. At best, it would need to be recompiled.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not enough. The code needs to be
> ported. Which has it's own problems (i.e. migration of bug
> fixes and new features into the Mac OS code base, people
> willing to care for the port etc.)

nearly everything has already been ported and recompiled for os x, and
those same issues apply to any unix.

> > plus there's a lot of mac apps
> > available too.
>
> There's more Windows apps than that. The poster has given
> up Windows. So "lots of apps" isn't an argument.

quality versus quantity, and a mac can run all of the windows apps
alongside the mac apps. best of both worlds. add in the unix ones too
for even more flexibility.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Andrew Reilly <areil...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:58:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <jk5nph$pit$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, philo <ph...@none.inv>

>>>> I know a Mac can run Windows but I am not a Windows user.

>>>> A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever
>>>> since

>>> then you will like a mac since os x is unix underneath,

>> Which means nothing at all.
>> First there are tons of different Unices. And while most of them have
>> similar tools, many don't have the GNU Tools --- which are much more
>> stable, feature rich and capable.

> Or gnarly, non-standard and buggy. There are all sorts.

In the GNU tools? Hmmm. Tests have shown that the GNU tools
take much longer to fail when fed random crap than venor
versions.

>> (Just for example, vendor "tail" programs do not necessarily support
>> displaying or watching the end of several files ...)

> OS X tail watches multiple files just fine. Looks exactly like FreeBSD
> tail, which it probably is.

Just one example I noticed with vendor tools.

>>> everything you do on linux will work natively,

>> No, it won't. At best, it would need to be recompiled.

> Which is the point of open source, right?

You don't grasp Open Source.
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
And libre software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> What do you imagine would have difficulty compiling?

Anything that needs something not native to OS X. Say,
anything needing X Windows means X Windows has to be compiled
first.

You get *real* fun with circular dependencies.

>> Unfortunately, that's not enough. The code needs to be ported. Which
>> has it's own problems (i.e. migration of bug fixes and new features into
>> the Mac OS code base, people willing to care for the port etc.)

> http://www.macports.org/

As I said, the software has to be ported.

> I've nothing agains Linux. I run an up-to-date Ubuntu VM system because
> (weirdly) there are commercially supported dev tools that run on Linux
> but not OS X.

Just run the dev tools on OS X ... "everything you do on
linux will work natively", wrote nospam. :-)


-Wolfgang

[Andrew Reilly]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:03:42 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> Anything that needs something not native to OS X. Say, anything needing
> X Windows means X Windows has to be compiled first.

You know that X Windows comes with OS X? (Admittedly I run a "better"
version (XQuartz) that tracks the up-stream server and utilities faster
than the "standard" one. Comes pre-compiled.)

> You get *real* fun with circular dependencies.

You might, but I haven't been caught in a circular dependency trap for
years.

>>> Unfortunately, that's not enough. The code needs to be ported. Which
>>> has it's own problems (i.e. migration of bug fixes and new features
>>> into the Mac OS code base, people willing to care for the port etc.)
>
>> http://www.macports.org/
>
> As I said, the software has to be ported.

No more than to any other Linux or Unix distribution. Mostly no more
than the usual ./configure; make; make install... Macports is the same
sort of infrastructure as apt or rpm: a repository of up-stream sites,
fetch mechanisms, dependency lists and configuration recipes. Open
source software wasn't all developed on Linux you know. A fair bit of it
pre-dates it...

Cheers,

--
Andrew

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>> >> I know a Mac can run Windows
>> >> but I am not a Windows user.

>> >> A few years ago I got hit with a root kit and have used Linux ever since

>> > then you will like a mac since os x is unix underneath,

>> Which means nothing at all.
>> First there are tons of different Unices. And while most of
>> them have similar tools, many don't have the GNU Tools ---
>> which are much more stable, feature rich and capable.

>> (Just for example, vendor "tail" programs do not necessarily
>> support displaying or watching the end of several files ...)

> that only matters to unix geeks.

And any setting on the camera other than full auto (including
RAW, exposure compensation, white balance) and stuff like proper
framing or noise or properly used flash and gear that's more
advanced than a point'n'shoot only matter to photography geeks.

Your point was?

> nearly everyone who buys a mac doesn't
> care about what 'tail' does (or even know what it means), however, for
> those who do, it's already there and if it doesn't do exactly what they
> want they can install a version that does.

And you do have sources that actually researched that?

>> > everything you
>> > do on linux will work natively,

>> No, it won't. At best, it would need to be recompiled.

>> Unfortunately, that's not enough. The code needs to be
>> ported. Which has it's own problems (i.e. migration of bug
>> fixes and new features into the Mac OS code base, people
>> willing to care for the port etc.)

> nearly everything has already been ported and recompiled for os x, and
> those same issues apply to any unix.

The premiere Unix today is Linux. For which it doesn't need to be
ported, since that's what it's developed upon.

>> > plus there's a lot of mac apps
>> > available too.

>> There's more Windows apps than that. The poster has given
>> up Windows. So "lots of apps" isn't an argument.

> quality versus quantity,

So you're also saying Mac applications are better. Voices in
your head telling you that?

> and a mac can run all of the windows apps
> alongside the mac apps. best of both worlds. add in the unix ones too
> for even more flexibility.

I see. A mac can do everything (and the moon's made out of cheese).
Bad news for you: Macs only matter to Mac geeks. Everyone else
doesn't care.

Actually, Linux can run all "windows apps", too.

-Wolfgang