What makes a mac better?

[Dudley Hanks]

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics, I've
never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
quality is unmatched."

Interestingly, a graphic file is nothing more than a bunch of data that
describes where each pixel goes and what colour that pixel should be, and,
in the case of 32 bit images, how transparent that pixel is set.

The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.

Basically the hardware is responsible for storing that data and getting
those bits of info into memory, where the software works with the data.
Then, the hardware takes the data in memory and displays it on a screen.
The hardware is really only responsible for moving the data around, not for
creating it or creatively processing it.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do the
job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

I wonder why that is...

Take Care,
Dudley

[ray]

IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

[Dudley Hanks]

"ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:a9uuvp...@mid.individual.net...

>Actually, I rather like various unix versions, as well, but most aren't all
>that accessible.

That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
offshoot of unix as the OS.

Take Care,
Dudley

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.08.26 11:43 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
> interesting...
>
> Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>
> In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics, I've
> never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
> quality is unmatched."

That notion is pre-2000 ish. It is no longer a point in favour of Mac.

> All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do the
> job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
> red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
> camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making
them underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not
at the processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact
someone sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed
16M colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only
capable of 260 thousand or so.

> Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
> mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

AFAIK Elements is identical in function on both platforms. I may be
wrong. ( I use CS5).

The value in a Mac is that it is a more streamlined, simple OS that
tends to work very consistently. Its security model (UNIX based) is
clear and concise.

This still allows the user to do stupid things, but if he operates from
a non admin account, then there are few ways that malware can get in -
and then only at a level that cannot cause much damage. The unaware
user can still get malware in to admin "level", but it takes the effort
of permitting it (or always running from an admin account - a no-no).

Hence, the relatively low population of Macs and the robustness of the
security module make it a poor target for malware. (There is a serious
attack every year or 2 in recent years. They affect a low number of
Macs ( the user is always the weak link ) and are quickly eradicated
after causing little or no damage. Apple to their discredit are always
slow to issue fixes.

It is fair to say because OS X is built for Apple computers alone, that
the OS/drivers and such need only to account for a narrower range of
hardware. That reduces complexity and likelihood of problems.

In terms of configuration, setup and fixing problems it is an order of
magnitude less frustration and time waste than Windows. Windows is
plain ugly in structure and functions. It is bolt-on after trusses and
suspenders and other things unmentionable, even by me.

The value of putting on malware protection is very low. The paranoid
and careless use it. I've never installed any. (I also run Windows on
my Mac under VMWare Fusion and that instance of WinXP has AVG Free
anti-virus).

The hardware for equivalent function is usually more expensive. The
setup I have now, were it a PC _with a high quality monitor_, would be
under $1200-$1300 - far less than this iMac alone, never mind the side
monitor that I have (a cheapie). OTOH this iMac is 4.5 years old. I
had to replace a failing HD at just shy of 3 years. This iMac performs
well enough for my photo needs and will for a while. I have upgrade
lust but I can hold that off. (New a99 camera coming soon...)

In laptops, the high end machines are not much more expensive than the
high end PC laptops.

The industry press tests show Apple hardware to be significantly higher
quality/reliability than the PC average, but only marginally better than
the best PC vendor hardware. As always you don't get what you don't pay
for.

For my personal computer I can't see going back to PC's and Windows.

For anyone contemplating the switch to Mac, look very carefully at your
overall software on your PC, how much you need it and are their
equivalents or substitutes on the Mac. You can always install Parallels
or VMWare Fusion (or the freeware one). That is fine for run of the
mill software but if you're into PC based games it probably won't be
quite enough (you can also bootcamp your way to Windows - I've never
tried it though).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

[Alan Browne]

Linux has been the NEXT THING since about 2000 - at that point in time
it had "arrived" as a desktop environment for the masses. It was going
to replace Windows outright and possibly turn off Apple's lights.

Sure Wilbur.

As a home/office desktop environment it absolutely sucks. And that is
why only geeks use it for such.

For fucks sake it is FREE! ... and only has a couple percent of the
desktop market. If something is so ridiculously good and free, everone
should be using it. (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter - all very
good to their users and free and immensely popular [no I don't use
facebook or Twitter])

Yet people pay MS' ridiculous premium prices for MS Windows (and pay for
malware protection too) and eschew Linux.

It has utterly failed to take on the home/office after a 10+ years assault.

The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of the
issue. (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of horse
dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").

Mountain Lion (upgrade) is $20. And that one (downloaded update)
payment applies to ALL the Macs in a house. Got 15 intel Macs? Fine
load 'em all up. And there are no idiotic feature levels like Windows
(except the OS X server, an additional $20).

Linux is for industrial, embedded, databases, super-computing and so on.
It is horrid as a desktop home/office machine. Yes I've been there.
Useless.

Your "stability and security unsurpassed" claim is specious too. Indeed
with the encrypted volume scheme on a Mac the hard disk is effectively
scrambled at all times that the key is not loaded. That's secure. As
to malware prevention Linux's sole advantage is that it is not targetted
as much as Windows.

Linux (like OS X) depends on the user to keep the barbarians out of the
gate. A well written attack with a dash of social engineering will get
malware in there. But I guess malware writers consider Linux to be too
lean, too savvy and especially too poor to bother attacking.

[Dudley Hanks]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:xvudnUmLcJih1qfN...@giganews.com...

When I picked up my version of Adobe Elements, there was no equivalent mac
version. At that time, Adobe was about 2 versions behind in mac-based
Elements, and there was talk that Adobe might be discontinuing support for
Elements on macs altogether.

I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
systems, but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
superiority are all that accurate.

Given that mac lovers tend to be more zealous than those in the PC family,
I'd chalk up longer lived apples to increased tlc by owners.

PCs get chucked around pretty good by everybody from the family kids to
low-level employees who dream of better jobs instead of attention to detail.

But, increased security / (possibly) durability have very little to do with
great graphics...

Take Care,
Dudley

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.08.26 12:00 , Dudley Hanks wrote:

> That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
> offshoot of unix as the OS.

It is no offshoot.
It is UNIX.
BSD based.
POSIX Compliant.
UNIX 03 certified.

You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
separately installed).

[Alan Browne]

They are - to my surprise. I believe "nospam" posted some reports on it
in one of the photo ng's during an interminable battle with Tony Cooper.

But as I said, when you buy the better PC hardware vendors, the
difference becomes marginal. That said, I've had PC's that have lasted
near a decade and were still fine when I got rid of them. (Last one had
a mother board failure after a mere 6 years however).

It's not on this basis alone that anyone should make a decision, but
rather to say that Macs are very well designed and built (I have some
reservations on that in terms of accessing a HD on an iMac, for example).

> Given that mac lovers tend to be more zealous than those in the PC family,
> I'd chalk up longer lived apples to increased tlc by owners.

Mac fans are irritating to be sure - look at me. They are frustrated
that everyone doesn't rush to the one true faith. Perhaps only Linux
wingnuts are worse.

PC users on the other hand are somewhat trapped into what they use at
home, what they use at work and so on.

That said, since the iPod and iPhone revolution the Mac (esp. the iMac
and laptops) have enjoyed a huge growth in sales (the 'halo effect').
And even in the last 2 years as desktop sales slowed, the iMac kept
growing in sales (began slowing 2 quarters ago).

> PCs get chucked around pretty good by everybody from the family kids to
> low-level employees who dream of better jobs instead of attention to detail.

Same with Macs. I recall a year or so ago at a party there were Macs
running all over the house. Youngest kid <- oldest Mac. They spanned
back into the pre OS X days. That says something.

I confess that last half of your sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.

> But, increased security / (possibly) durability have very little to do with
> great graphics...

Your question was "what makes a Mac better?" I listed some things.

What I failed to write is that Mac displays are very nice and well
suited to photography. Soon after buying this iMac I borrowed a spider
and calibrated it. The result was so close to the factory default that
I left it at factory. Re-cal a year late showed no real change (more
variation in the calibration process than in the annual change - if any).

An iMac may be comparatively expensive to a PC kit, but the display
provided is way better than the monitor provided with, eg, the hp kit on
sale at Staples this week.

Again, re-read my last paragraph. That is really what anyone must
understand before switching.

[Dudley Hanks]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

news:ieCdnZWGvab2zafN...@giganews.com...

Now for some legal bullshit. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group
. From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
unix is, they would agree with me that it's a description of the function of
a family of operating systems, but they would also add ``that we have
certified to be UNIX''. So legally, it's not a UNIX unless The Open Group
certifies it as a UNIX. So a lot of those operating systems I listed as
unices are not UNIXes. It's a thoroughly sad case of legalities getting in
the way of simplicity & sanity.

Anyway, I say that if an operating system behaves like unix, then it's a
unix, though not necessarily a UNIX(TM).

--From: http://sdf.org/tutorials/unx/node4.html

Take Care,
Dudley

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.08.26 13:01 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:ieCdnZWGvab2zafN...@giganews.com...
>> On 2012.08.26 12:00 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
>>> offshoot of unix as the OS.
>>
>> It is no offshoot.
>> It is UNIX.
>> BSD based.
>> POSIX Compliant.
>> UNIX 03 certified.
>>
>> You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
>> the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
>> separately installed).
>>
>> --
>> "C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
>> -John Keating.
>

> Now for some bullshit. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group

> . From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
> unix is,

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf

(there are also certificates for prior OS X releases back through Leopard).

[nospam]

In article <mqednSQQVvem0qfN...@giganews.com>, Dudley

Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> When I picked up my version of Adobe Elements, there was no equivalent mac
> version. At that time, Adobe was about 2 versions behind in mac-based
> Elements,

they skipped version 5 & 7 for mac for some reason, so at *most* it was
one version behind.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_Elements>

every other release was for both platforms and at the same time. it's a
cross platform app from the same codebase.

i'm also curious why you would have even looked at whether there was a
mac version, given that you have no intention of getting a mac.

> and there was talk that Adobe might be discontinuing support for
> Elements on macs altogether.

the only such talk would have been from ignorant people.

roughly half of adobe's revenue comes from macs. why would adobe
discontinue support of half of their revenue base??

> I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
> systems, but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
> superiority are all that accurate.

look at consumer satisfaction reports, reliability reports, etc. macs
are consistently on top.

> Given that mac lovers tend to be more zealous than those in the PC family,
> I'd chalk up longer lived apples to increased tlc by owners.
>
> PCs get chucked around pretty good by everybody from the family kids to
> low-level employees who dream of better jobs instead of attention to detail.

nonsense. macs don't get any more care than anything else. some users
are gentle with their stuff and others are not.

> But, increased security / (possibly) durability have very little to do with
> great graphics...

it does when you have to keep dealing with malware threats, removing it
if you get it, etc.

[nospam]

In article <xvudnUmLcJih1qfN...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

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

> Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making
> them underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not
> at the processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact
> someone sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed
> 16M colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only
> capable of 260 thousand or so.

both mac and windows laptops use 6 bit displays. it's nothing unique to
apple. many windows laptops also use lower quality tn displays to cut
costs whereas macs don't.

laptops have a power constraint and most people don't do colour
critical work on a laptop, so it's a fair tradeoff. you can always plug
in an external display, which many people do.

that said, the macbook pro with retina display has an 8 bit ips
display. it's as good as anything you can get on your desk outside of
something like eizo ($$), and actually much better due to its insanely
high resolution.

> > Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
> > mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.
>
> AFAIK Elements is identical in function on both platforms. I may be
> wrong. ( I use CS5).

just about all adobe software is cross platform, not just elements.

[nospam]

In article <a9uuvp...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
wrote:

> IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
> best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

what's unsurpassed about linux is the lack of useful software.

[nospam]

In article <Hf-dnfaGVfvU2afN...@giganews.com>, Dudley

Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
> mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

more nonsense.

adobe's products are cross platform. it's the same codebase for both.
any work that goes into one goes into the other automatically.

by the way, photoshop began on a mac, as did lightroom, and even
microsoft excel was mac only initially. they were later ported to
windows.

[nospam]

In article <346dndCQErAQy6fN...@giganews.com>, Dudley

Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> Now for some legal bullshit. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group
> . From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
> unix is, they would agree with me that it's a description of the function of
> a family of operating systems, but they would also add ``that we have
> certified to be UNIX''. So legally, it's not a UNIX unless The Open Group
> certifies it as a UNIX. So a lot of those operating systems I listed as
> unices are not UNIXes. It's a thoroughly sad case of legalities getting in
> the way of simplicity & sanity.

it's legally unix.

<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm>
<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm>
<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3591.htm>

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.08.26 13:14 , Alan Browne wrote:

> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf
>
> (there are also certificates for prior OS X releases back through Leopard).

Note the signature on that document. I mean what I sez.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, "Dudley Hanks"

<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

>I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
>interesting...
>
>Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
everything; even things they have no personal experience with.

It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.

More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.

Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
is the best machine on the market?

Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
biased against Macs. I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
choice.

It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[PeterN]

On 8/26/2012 1:57 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <xvudnUmLcJih1qfN...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making
>> them underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not
>> at the processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact
>> someone sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed
>> 16M colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only
>> capable of 260 thousand or so.
>
> both mac and windows laptops use 6 bit displays. it's nothing unique to
> apple. many windows laptops also use lower quality tn displays to cut
> costs whereas macs don't.
>
> laptops have a power constraint and most people don't do colour
> critical work on a laptop, so it's a fair tradeoff. you can always plug
> in an external display, which many people do.
>
> that said, the macbook pro with retina display has an 8 bit ips
> display. it's as good as anything you can get on your desk outside of
> something like eizo ($$), and actually much better due to its insanely
> high resolution.

Do you actually work with any post processing program, or do you just
bullshit using theoretical specs.


--
Peter

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.08.26 15:28 , tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
>> interesting...
>>
>> Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>
> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
> Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
> everything; even things they have no personal experience with.
>
> It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
> qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
> experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.
>
> More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
> because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
> working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
> Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.

I disagree with that. A lot of Mac users, esp. the artsy sorts are
pretty lame when it comes to understanding everything going on on their
computers. But they are productive with them whether writing, doing art
(incl. photography) and so on. There is something about the fussless
way things are done that appeals to them.

>
> Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
> that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
> of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
> purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
> refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
> pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

There are areas (not universal) where the cost of equivalent spec macs
and PC's are very close, esp. in laptops. Yes you can make your case
where you don't need a quad core i7 laptop, an i3 dual core will do.
It's meaningless to those who need more powerful machines.

Windows is bizarrely expensive and comes in several "levels". The least
expensive (and crippled level) is about $140 and is a license for one
machine. The most expensive "starts" at $280. And is a license for one
machine.

OTOH, Upgrades to OS X are quite low priced. The current update to
"Lion" is "Mountain Lion" and is $20. There are no other flavours. And
that one license covers all Macs under one roof.

So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
$600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of them.

Or $20 if using 5 Macs in the same household.

> I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
> best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
> them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
> aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
> When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
> is the best machine on the market?

Go to the right forum and you will hear the hp/dell/etc. fights.

This dickwaver uses both Windows and Macs (and even smatterings of
Linux) and can tell you without a smidgen of bias that Mac OS X is far
better than Windows which has evolved from meager beginnings to be a big
mediocrity of a thousand disjointed parts. A blivet. That is Windows.

Mac hardware is very good stuff. That doesn't matter much because most
good PC brands are very good stuff too...

Except in one area. When you buy an iMac or a Mac laptop, the displays
are head and shoulders above what is provided with PC kits and most (not
all) PC laptops. There is premium value in Mac displays. (And that's
not even counting the superlative retina displays now available on some
Macbooks and Macbook Air laptops and rumoured to be coming to the iMac
this fall).

> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
> biased against Macs. I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
> that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
> with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
> satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
> person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
> choice.

You can't help it. Get a Mac and you never go back. You will wave your
dick without embarrassment no matter how small. To have and use a Mac
is to have arrived. To be free of all the hassles of PC-dom.

> It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
> that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
> to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
> the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
> don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.

Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.

[George Kerby]

On 8/26/12 10:43 AM, in article
Hf-dnfaGVfvU2afN...@giganews.com, "Dudley Hanks"

<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
> interesting...
>

<snip>

Dudley, are you trolling for a flame war?!?

<bows head>

Tsk-tsk...

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:49:55 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>There are areas (not universal) where the cost of equivalent spec macs
>and PC's are very close, esp. in laptops. Yes you can make your case
>where you don't need a quad core i7 laptop, an i3 dual core will do.
>It's meaningless to those who need more powerful machines.
>
>Windows is bizarrely expensive and comes in several "levels". The least
>expensive (and crippled level) is about $140 and is a license for one
>machine. The most expensive "starts" at $280. And is a license for one
>machine.
>
>OTOH, Upgrades to OS X are quite low priced. The current update to
>"Lion" is "Mountain Lion" and is $20. There are no other flavours. And
>that one license covers all Macs under one roof.
>
>So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
>$600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of them.

If a family of five requires five separate computers, and all want to
upgrade from Vista to Win 7, that would be a choice like buying that
more expensive laptop you mention above.

I have WindowsXP on my desktop and Win7 on my laptop. I see no
particular advantage or disadvantage to Win7, but prefer the
familiarity of XP. I've never used Vista. The only time I've
upgraded was when I first went to a Windows version yonks ago.

I've never paid for an anti-virus. I used Norton, which came bundled,
until they wanted money. I now use the free Avast anti-virus.

>> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
>> biased against Macs. I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
>> that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
>> with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
>> satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
>> person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
>> choice.
>
>You can't help it.

Oh, I think I could manage.

>Get a Mac and you never go back. You will wave your
>dick without embarrassment no matter how small. To have and use a Mac
>is to have arrived. To be free of all the hassles of PC-dom.

I'll let you know if I ever come across a hassle because of my PC
ownership. So far, I've evolved from an Archives CP/M system to my
present state without thinking I've been hassled. Ignorance is bliss,
I guess.

>> It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
>> that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
>> to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
>> the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
>> don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.
>
>Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
>you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
>hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.

Again, it has to happen before I can recognize it. I haven't traveled
all that much using my PC laptop, but I don't recall a hassle because
of it. I did have to send down for a cable at the French Lick
Sheraton because the unconnected PC would not pick up the wifi in
those thick walls (very old resort hotel built in 1901), but I'm
unaware if a Mac would have saved that ten minute delay in connecting.

[Dudley Hanks]

"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CC5FF01C.8DA47%ghost_...@hotmail.com...

Only with nospam ... ;)

[nospam]

In article <mark381la09cqfi95...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.

some might, but most don't.

people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
given task.

what's important is getting the job done, not which tool you use.

> Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
> everything; even things they have no personal experience with.

i never said anything of the sort.

> It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
> qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
> experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.

a car is just a car. a kia won't get you to the store any faster than a
lexus or bmw or ferrari, but it won't be as comfortable of a ride.

the difference is a mac does a lot of things with a lot less hassle.
it's a 'nicer ride'.

> More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
> because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
> working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
> Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.

you do have data to back that up? didn't think so.

> Macs are more expensive than PCs.

once again, they are not, and in some cases they are cheaper.

> Mac-pimps are quick to point out
> that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
> of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
> purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user.

maybe in your personal dictionary it might be but not in anyone elses.

compare like versus like.

> Mac-pimps
> refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
> pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

more bullshit. nobody has said anything of the sort.

and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
which you are trying to deny.

> I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
> best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
> them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
> aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
> When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
> is the best machine on the market?

many times, actually.

pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now and dudley has
been doing. in fact, most of the mac-pc flamewars began with an idiot
making a bogus claim about macs and then a mac user corrects him.

there is a *lot* of misinformation about macs out there, some of which
might have been true 20 years ago, but mainly, it's just ignorance.

mac users don't give a flying fuck what people use. many mac users use
pcs *and* macs, and are therefore able to make direct comparisons about
which one is better for a particular task. for some things, a mac is
the better choice and for others it isn't. pick the best tool for the
job.

mac bashers can't get this through their heads. all they know is
windows windows windows. if a mac is better for a given task, they
refuse to acknowledge it. they rant how macs are to be avoided and the
users are wackos. they refuse to listen to anything about a mac or how
something might possibly be easier to do on a different system.

> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
> biased against Macs.

bullshit. the fact that you call mac users 'mac-pimps' means are *very*
biased against macs and mac users, and saying you aren't means you're a
liar.

> I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
> that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
> with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
> satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
> person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
> choice.

have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.

> It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
> that counts.

that is true, but it contradicts your idiotic rant.

> I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
> to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
> the machine they use.

it's not the output that matters, it's the ease of which it can be
done. as i said before about cars, it's a nicer ride.

> And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
> don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.

because i have *no* interest in sharing it with you.

furthermore, my artistic skills do not change anything i've said.

you are once again, trying desperately to divert the issue.

[nospam]

In article <503a7b60$0$6360$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> Do you actually work with any post processing program, or do you just
> bullshit using theoretical specs.

mainly photoshop and lightroom. i've written several photoshop plug-ins
so i know how photoshop works internally and have also worked on other
image processing software. i've used aperture a couple of times but
don't like it. i use iphoto to sync photos to my idevices but not to
edit. from time to time i look at other apps just to see what they're
up to, including pixelmator, the gimp and others. it's been a while
since i've done anything with video, but i used to use adobe premiere.
on the rare occasion i need to do video now, i used imovie only because
it's free.

any other questions?

[nospam]

In article <tv6dnXaQpKt-4KfN...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

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

> > Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
> > that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
> > of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
> > purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
> > refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
> > pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.
>
> There are areas (not universal) where the cost of equivalent spec macs
> and PC's are very close, esp. in laptops. Yes you can make your case
> where you don't need a quad core i7 laptop, an i3 dual core will do.
> It's meaningless to those who need more powerful machines.
>
> Windows is bizarrely expensive and comes in several "levels". The least
> expensive (and crippled level) is about $140 and is a license for one
> machine. The most expensive "starts" at $280. And is a license for one
> machine.
>
> OTOH, Upgrades to OS X are quite low priced. The current update to
> "Lion" is "Mountain Lion" and is $20. There are no other flavours. And
> that one license covers all Macs under one roof.
>
> So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
> $600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of them.
>
> Or $20 if using 5 Macs in the same household.

yep, and that's something the mac bashers ignore. they look at the
initial price tag and assume there will be no other costs.

> > I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
> > best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
> > them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
> > aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
> > When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
> > is the best machine on the market?
>
> Go to the right forum and you will hear the hp/dell/etc. fights.
>
> This dickwaver uses both Windows and Macs (and even smatterings of
> Linux) and can tell you without a smidgen of bias that Mac OS X is far
> better than Windows which has evolved from meager beginnings to be a big
> mediocrity of a thousand disjointed parts. A blivet. That is Windows.
>
> Mac hardware is very good stuff. That doesn't matter much because most
> good PC brands are very good stuff too...
>
> Except in one area. When you buy an iMac or a Mac laptop, the displays
> are head and shoulders above what is provided with PC kits and most (not
> all) PC laptops. There is premium value in Mac displays. (And that's
> not even counting the superlative retina displays now available on some
> Macbooks and Macbook Air laptops and rumoured to be coming to the iMac
> this fall).

and there's also support.

got a question or problem? go to an apple store and they'll help, no
matter what it is. if the machine is not working properly, they'll
diagnose it, whether it's in warranty or not. if it's not, a repair
will probably cost money (no surprise there), but if it's a simple
thing such as reseating memory, reinstalling an app, etc., it will be
free.

in fact, they'll even help with *non* mac products. i saw someone bring
in a dell laptop and an ipod, and they walked him through getting it to
work. repairs are done same day or next day, except for alan's apple
store which is the lone exception to the rule. a year or so ago i
dropped off my laptop at 9am in the morning and they called me a little
after lunch to pick it up, fixed. try that at best buy and they
wouldn't have even touched it let alone fix it in that time.

> > It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
> > that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
> > to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
> > the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
> > don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.
>
> Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
> you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
> hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.

as opposed to the likes of tony who hasn't used a mac and doesn't know
what they can or cannot do.

[PeterN]

True. And life under a dictatorship, without the right to choose, is
simple too.

--
Peter

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.08.26 17:05 , nospam wrote:

> work. repairs are done same day or next day, except for alan's apple
> store which is the lone exception to the rule. a year or so ago i

You have 0 basis to know how many Apple stores provide as bad service as
Apple Montreal and Laval.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:05:48 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <mark381la09cqfi95...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
>> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
>
>some might, but most don't.
>
>people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
>pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
>given task.

No, PC users don't bash Macs. We bash Mac-pimps. The machine is
quite good. It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
that we make fun of. We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
don't dick-wave here.

>
>and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
>which you are trying to deny.

I have no bias against the machine or anything about it. I do have a
bias against people like you.

>
>pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now

Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.

>> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
>> biased against Macs.
>
>bullshit. the fact that you call mac users 'mac-pimps' means are *very*
>biased against macs and mac users, and saying you aren't means you're a
>liar.

Didn't say I wasn't biased against some Mac users; just not biased
against the machine.

>
>have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
>are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.

I'm sure a Mac could do what I want and need to do. But, since my PC
already does that, why should I not stay with my PC?

[George Kerby]

On 8/26/12 3:30 PM, in article
vcSdnQsW4cMYGqfN...@giganews.com, "Dudley Hanks"

That isn't difficult, LOL!

[George Kerby]

On 8/26/12 4:05 PM, in article 260820121405567786%nos...@nospam.invalid,

There *IS* a reason for this..

<http://osxdaily.com/2011/09/20/apple-customer-satisfaction-rating-at-all-ti
me-high-dominates-pc-industry/>

And this...

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20108336-17/apple-tops-in-customer-satisf
action-for-8th-year/>

BTW, FYI...

<http://www.apple.com/accessibility/>

[George Kerby]

On 8/26/12 4:48 PM, in article fs5l38d0k2v8n3680...@4ax.com,

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> why should I not stay with my PC?
>

Because my IRA needs to grow?

[Dudley Hanks]

"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:CC600D2F.8DC01%ghost_...@hotmail.com...

You might say, he's becoming my number one diversion tactic when boredom
sets in ... :)

[nospam]

In article <503a9319$0$6396$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> > Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
> > you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
> > hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.
>
> True. And life under a dictatorship, without the right to choose, is
> simple too.

what dictatorship?

you can run any software you want on a mac, including a lot of open
source software. macs use industry standard formats, such as mp3, aac,
mpeg, h.264, pdf, etc.

meanwhile, windows locks you in with proprietary formats and
technologies like wmv, wma, active-x, .net, etc.

[nospam]

In article <fs5l38d0k2v8n3680...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
> >> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
> >
> >some might, but most don't.
> >
> >people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
> >pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
> >given task.
>
> No, PC users don't bash Macs.

oh yes they do. check out the .advocacy groups sometime.

and i didn't realize you are the chairperson for all pc users and speak
for all of them.

> We bash Mac-pimps.

condescending remarks noted.

mac users don't need to drop to puerile insults.

> The machine is
> quite good.

yes it is.

> It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
> that we make fun of. We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
> don't dick-wave here.

another lie.

> >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
> >which you are trying to deny.
>
> I have no bias against the machine or anything about it. I do have a
> bias against people like you.

yes, that much is obvious.

i could tell you the sky is blue and you'd find fault with it.

> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
>
> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.

you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.

> >> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
> >> biased against Macs.
> >
> >bullshit. the fact that you call mac users 'mac-pimps' means are *very*
> >biased against macs and mac users, and saying you aren't means you're a
> >liar.
>
> Didn't say I wasn't biased against some Mac users; just not biased
> against the machine.

bullshit.

> >have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
> >are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.
>
> I'm sure a Mac could do what I want and need to do. But, since my PC
> already does that, why should I not stay with my PC?

i never told you to switch. another lie.

however, what you *don't* know is if a mac can do what you want and
need to do with *less* hassle than what you have now.

moving a window across displays is one example of less hassle. you
think it's minor, and it is, but it's not the only difference. there
are a lot of things that are easier on a mac and it adds up. at the end
of the day, a lot of people find using macs to be less hassle and
they're more productive, but it really depends on the task. for some
things, windows is better. you've never done a side by side comparison,
so you don't actually know which one is best for what you need to do.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:28:58 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
>> that we make fun of. We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
>> don't dick-wave here.
>
>another lie.
>
>> >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
>> >which you are trying to deny.
>>
>> I have no bias against the machine or anything about it. I do have a
>> bias against people like you.
>
>yes, that much is obvious.

>i could tell you the sky is blue and you'd find fault with it.
>
>> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
>>
>> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
>
>you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.

A cite would be in order here. Macs are over-rated, but only by the
Mac-pimps who think they have special powers because they own Macs.
People who are confident of their own skills don't think the skills
come from the machine's maker.

I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
I'd have been up to speed.

What I didn't see was some magical *increase* in my skills. Nor, did
I expect one. It was just another machine.

My object of ridicule is you, just you. It's not the machine at all.
You seem to have that cultist mentality that imbues special powers to
the machine.

As far as the rest of the Mac users, the Duck and Alan are the only
two that I know that use a Mac, and only because they bring it up.
Neither seems to have their nose up the Apple ports the way you do.
Both like their systems, but both come across to me as people who have
earned their chops because of their own skills, not because they use
Macs. Take away their Macs, and their output wouldn't suffer beyond a
short adjustment period. If that.

You are just a rather silly True Believer who thinks you've been
initiated into some exclusive club because you bought a particular
product. It may be nice to think you can buy respectability at the
Apple Store, but you came out with an empty bag.

[rwalker]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, "Dudley Hanks"

<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

>I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
>interesting...
>

>Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>

After years and years of this debate, I've decided that people think
whatever they are used to is the best.

[nospam]

In article <9pel381iqletflfcl...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
> >>
> >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
> >
> >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.
>
> A cite would be in order here.

there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.

> Macs are over-rated, but only by the
> Mac-pimps who think they have special powers because they own Macs.

more nonsense and more insults.

> People who are confident of their own skills don't think the skills
> come from the machine's maker.

i never said skills come from the machine's maker. more lies.

> I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
> in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
> works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
> I'd have been up to speed.

photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
your performance. it's the *exact* same app.

> What I didn't see was some magical *increase* in my skills. Nor, did
> I expect one. It was just another machine.

nobody said a mac would magically increase your skills. more lies.

> My object of ridicule is you, just you. It's not the machine at all.
> You seem to have that cultist mentality that imbues special powers to
> the machine.

i do not give the machine special powers. where do you come up with
that rubbish? more lies.

i point out what macs can do and i also correct bogus and misleading
statements made by others.

> As far as the rest of the Mac users, the Duck and Alan are the only
> two that I know that use a Mac, and only because they bring it up.

i don't mention macs until someone else does, usually when they say
something stupid or incorrect.

> Neither seems to have their nose up the Apple ports the way you do.
> Both like their systems, but both come across to me as people who have
> earned their chops because of their own skills, not because they use
> Macs. Take away their Macs, and their output wouldn't suffer beyond a
> short adjustment period. If that.

you don't know that. more bullshit.

even if that were true, two people does not mean that would apply to
everyone.

there are many situations where a mac is the only solution, and
replacing it with something else will bring productivity to *zero*.

there are other situations where a mac makes things a *lot* easier and
productivity would be severely impacted by replacing it with something
else, but not zero.

and there are situations where it doesn't matter what system you use,
as there are ones where a pc is the best choice.

i've said it before and i'll say it again, pick the best tool for the
job. sometimes that's a mac, sometimes it's a pc and sometimes it's
something else.

you are a typical mindless pc fanboi and apple basher. you won't even
consider a mac and if it might make things easier for you. maybe it
will, maybe it won't, but like dudley, you've already decided ahead of
time that it won't and you don't want one.

> You are just a rather silly True Believer who thinks you've been
> initiated into some exclusive club because you bought a particular
> product. It may be nice to think you can buy respectability at the
> Apple Store, but you came out with an empty bag.

more insults and more bullshit.

maybe one day you'll stop lying and have something valid to refute what
i say rather than resort to ad hominem attacks. one can only hope.

[Dudley Hanks]

"allspam" <all...@allspam.invalid> wrote in message
news:260820121855058734%

useless stuff allspam isn't willing to support snipped

Well, allspam? I noticed that once I suggested you show your stuff with the
mac, using only the mac's much touted screen reader as your sole means of
navigation, you sort of went all limp ... What's up?

I can hold up my end of the bargain, including the behind the back voiceless
messaging, how about you?

Where's the bravado?

All guts and glory when you're telling a blind guy you know a better way for
him to work, but not so gutsy when the spotlight shines back your way?

Take Care,
Dudley

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:55:05 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <9pel381iqletflfcl...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
>> >
>> >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.
>>
>> A cite would be in order here.
>
>there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
>over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
>thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
>that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.

Typical weasel answer. You'd find a cite if there was one.

When, btw, did you start doing "important" things?

>> I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
>> in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
>> works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
>> I'd have been up to speed.
>
>photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
>your performance. it's the *exact* same app.

Certainly there are differences. The structure for finding and
opening files was different. I can't remember the specifics, but there
were these little icons across the lower part of the screen. Not
terribly complicated, but different enough that it slowed me down at
first.

The location of the keys was different on the Mac system that I used.
The experienced Photoshop user doesn't look at the keyboard. The
experienced Photoshop user instinctively goes for "Control + (key)"
and has to stop and think about "Command + (key) until acclimation
sets in. It takes a second to think that "Option + (key) is the same
as "Alt + (key). The mouse was different.

Photoshop is the same, but an experienced Photoshop user uses keyboard
shortcuts and the mouse without conscious thought. Slow those down,
and there's a slight decrease in performance until acclimation. Just
as I said.

>i don't mention macs until someone else does, usually when they say
>something stupid or incorrect.

You don't really believe this, do you?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Hanks writes:

> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
> interesting...
>
> Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

These days, it's pure emotion. There is no way to objectively prove either
type of computer "better." They use the same hardware and differ only in the
operating system that runs on the machine.

> In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics, I've
> never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
> quality is unmatched."

The Mac used to have a huge advantage for graphics, electronic publishing,
music and video editing, etc. That advantage is gone today, since most
software for these domains runs on both PCs and Macs. There's still a bit more
choice in the Mac world, but not enough to offset the smaller number of other
applications, unless one is dedicating a separate machine to graphics,
publishing, or whatever.

The internal hardware is the same as a PC today, so there's no difference in
quality. Some PCs use cheaper components, others use more expensive
components, many of the components are identical on both platforms, and if one
builds one's own PC, the components can be of whatever quality one is prepared
to pay for.

> All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do the
> job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
> red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
> camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Right. And there's no way to tell whether an image has been processed on a
Windows machine or a Mac.

> Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
> mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

The Windows market is much larger. Adobe switches from primary development for
Mac to the PC years ago. That is, today Photoshop is developed first for the
PC, then it is ported to the Mac, whereas in the old days it was the other way
around. Which doesn't really affect anything, anyway, since it works much the
same on both platforms.

[Mxsmanic]

ray writes:

> IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
> best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

There's no such thing as Linux. There are only endless different systems based
on a Linux kernel.

And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is abysmal.

Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure than any
standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> It is no offshoot.
> It is UNIX.
> BSD based.
> POSIX Compliant.
> UNIX 03 certified.
>
> You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
> the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
> separately installed).

Legally it's not UNIX because of some trademark issues.

In any case, there's nothing ideal about UNIX, especially on the desktop.

And UNIX is buried so deeply beneath proprietary code on Macs that it really
can't be referred to as UNIX, anyway.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Hanks writes:

> I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
> systems ...

Not true. The Windows NT security model is much more advanced than the
standard UNIX security model. UNIX was never designed to be secure, and it's a
Swiss cheese. Ironically, it was inspired by Multics, still the most secure
general-purpose operating system ever designed. But security was one of the
things that UNIX sacrificed for the sake of simplification (it wasn't
considered necessary back then).

> ... but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
> superiority are all that accurate.

Same hardware.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
> $600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of them.

You need virus protection or safe computing practices for both Macs and
Windows. Windows is more secure, but it is far more frequently attacked than
Macs, because Macs are not widespread. Microsoft Security Essentials is free
and does a better job than many payware antivirus packages, if you need such a
package.

> Except in one area. When you buy an iMac or a Mac laptop, the displays
> are head and shoulders above what is provided with PC kits and most (not
> all) PC laptops. There is premium value in Mac displays.

Which is why God created Eizo.

> You can't help it. Get a Mac and you never go back. You will wave your
> dick without embarrassment no matter how small. To have and use a Mac
> is to have arrived. To be free of all the hassles of PC-dom.

What hassles? The hassles for me are not having the software I want and paying
too much for a computer, which tends to favor PCs.

One fundamental rule of IT is that you cannot simplify without losing
flexibility and functionality, and vice versa.

[Mxsmanic]

nospam writes:

> and there's also support.

A system that needs support is either defective or badly designed.

It's better to have a good computer that never fails and comes with no support
than to have a bad computer that fails regularly but has excellent support.

[Mxsmanic]

nospam writes:

> you can run any software you want on a mac, including a lot of open
> source software. macs use industry standard formats, such as mp3, aac,
> mpeg, h.264, pdf, etc.

You can't build your own Mac.

[nospam]

In article <3badnbPlss_JRafN...@giganews.com>, Dudley

Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> All guts and glory when you're telling a blind guy you know a better way for
> him to work, but not so gutsy when the spotlight shines back your way?

i never said i know a better way for you to work.

all i did was refute your bogus claims.

you won't admit you're wrong so now you're trying to shift it into
something else.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:50:31 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

My understanding is that Adobe develops all their software in C++ and
then (cross) compiles separately for the Windows and Apple
environments.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Dudley Hanks]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nvrl38lue33pd4i2l...@4ax.com...

Wasn't UNIX originally intended as a sort of primitive gaming platform?

[Dudley Hanks]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:260820122111360188%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Refute my bogus claims?

How can my asertian that I don't like apple and am not likely to ever buy
one of their blind unfriendly products again be considered bogus?

All that says is that I don't like the company or its products, and that I
consider their lineup unfriendly to somebody with my degree of vision loss.

Given you don't have my likes, dislikes or vision loss, I fail to see how
you are in a position to confidently claim my assertian as bogus.

However, if you did indeed work on the system, you'd be in a perfect
position to perform a video demo for the rest of us and show us that there
might be a reason for me to change my mind.

Seems perfectly natural to me.

I wonder why you're suddenly chicken... :)

As for me, I know my system well enough to confidently assert that I can do
a demo for you, one you'll not likely forget, or best with amac...

Can't think of a better way for you to prove my assertian is bogus than
proving me wrong.

Take care,
Dudley

[isw]

In article <Hf-dnfaGVfvU2afN...@giganews.com>,

"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
> interesting...
>
> Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

It's possible to do nearly the same set of tasks on either platform (and
also on Linux, for that matter). The difference lies in how easy (or
difficult) it is to convince the computer to do what you want it to.

Sort of the same way that any non-broken automobile will manage to get
you to where you want to go, but the trip is a lot more pleasant with
some cars than with others.

Isaac

[Martin Brown]

On 26/08/2012 20:28, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, "Dudley Hanks"

> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
>> interesting...
>>
>> Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>

> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.

Macs are actually well engineered and specified when compared to the
average consumer PC, but they are also overpriced. The main Mac user
advantage is that OS/X is a lot more stable than Mickeysofts offering.
Some of what you are paying for is brand image and expensive shops!

And that is ignoring the still born even numbered versions of 'Doze that
no-one ever loved like Vista and now the latest malformed Win8.

> Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
> everything; even things they have no personal experience with.
>
> It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
> qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
> experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.
>
> More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
> because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
> working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
> Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.

Moreover very knowledgable Mac users can buy certain off the shelf
models of PC for which all the right Apple drivers exist and create a
Hackintosh that works exactly like a real Mac except it is running on
generic PC hardware (carefully chosen to match the right hardware spec).

> Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
> that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
> of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
> purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
> refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
> pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

The main advantage for someone who just wants to use it as a tool is
that the Mac is more likely to do what they want intuitively than the PC
and is much less likely to corrupt its hard disk or require complete
reinstallation of the OS because some program installer trashed the
registry or malware found yet another buffer overrun exploit.

I have both and I have to accept that the Mac is a much easier ride for
non technical end user who is not into the details of computing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

Actually you can. Look up Hackintosh.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Hanks writes:

> Wasn't UNIX originally intended as a sort of primitive gaming platform?

Not specifically, although a simple game was used as a target application for
the new OS. And "game" software in those days was so different from what we
know today that it couldn't really be called games.

Multics was an excellent and very advanced operating system (even by today's
standards), but it was tremendously ahead of its time. For one thing, it
provided features that nobody needed at the time, and worse yet, the hardware
of the time simply was not fast enough to run it in a practical way, even with
mainframe horsepower behind it. Today you could run it on an iPhone, if only
someone would port it to the platform (often discussed, never done as far as I
know).

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> My understanding is that Adobe develops all their software in C++ and
> then (cross) compiles separately for the Windows and Apple
> environments.

They have to design initially for one or the other, since there are some
differences in the user interface.

[nospam]

In article <20cm385uejcfijbke...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

nope. they design for both, using a cross platform framework.

[nospam]

In article <kgnl38hia9jmkoda7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
> >> >
> >> >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.
> >>
> >> A cite would be in order here.
> >
> >there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
> >over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
> >thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
> >that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.
>
> Typical weasel answer. You'd find a cite if there was one.

there is but i'm not going to dig through the zillions of posts. you
are more than welcome to, however.

> When, btw, did you start doing "important" things?

long ago. why do you care?

> >> I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
> >> in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
> >> works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
> >> I'd have been up to speed.
> >
> >photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
> >your performance. it's the *exact* same app.
>
> Certainly there are differences.

not in photoshop there isn't. it's the exact same app from the same
codebase.

> The structure for finding and
> opening files was different.

the dialog looks a little different but it's nothing significant.

> I can't remember the specifics, but there
> were these little icons across the lower part of the screen.

that's the dock, which is part of os x, not photoshop. on windows you
have the taskbar. similar concept.

> Not
> terribly complicated, but different enough that it slowed me down at
> first.

except once you launch photoshop, it's the same.

other stuff is different, some dramatically so, but you mentioned
photoshop, and photoshop is the *same*.

> The location of the keys was different on the Mac system that I used.
> The experienced Photoshop user doesn't look at the keyboard. The
> experienced Photoshop user instinctively goes for "Control + (key)"
> and has to stop and think about "Command + (key) until acclimation
> sets in. It takes a second to think that "Option + (key) is the same
> as "Alt + (key).

plug in whatever keyboard you prefer. any standard usb keyboard will
work.

> The mouse was different.

plug in whatever mouse you prefer. any standard usb mouse will work.

keyboards and mice are very subjective. everyone likes something
different. go to a computer store and there are a wide variety of
keyboards and mice, and it has nothing to do with macs or windows
systems.

> Photoshop is the same, but an experienced Photoshop user uses keyboard
> shortcuts and the mouse without conscious thought. Slow those down,
> and there's a slight decrease in performance until acclimation. Just
> as I said.

if you sat down at another windows system with a different mouse and a
different keyboard, you'd have the same issues.

it's not mac or windows, it's picking the keyboard and mouse you prefer.

personally, i hate apple's mice, so i bought something else.

> >i don't mention macs until someone else does, usually when they say
> >something stupid or incorrect.
>
> You don't really believe this, do you?

where have i started a thread about macs?

[nospam]

In article <lbrl38ldtga7r9uu9...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
> > interesting...
> >
> > Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>
> These days, it's pure emotion.

wrong.

> There is no way to objectively prove either
> type of computer "better." They use the same hardware and differ only in the
> operating system that runs on the machine.

wrong. there is custom hardware in a mac.

> The internal hardware is the same as a PC today, so there's no difference in
> quality. Some PCs use cheaper components, others use more expensive
> components,

in other words, there actually is a difference in quality.

> many of the components are identical on both platforms,

some are, but not all.

> and if one
> builds one's own PC, the components can be of whatever quality one is prepared
> to pay for.

sure, but few people build their own computers and nobody builds their
own laptops.

> > All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do
> > the job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
> > red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
> > camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).
>
> Right. And there's no way to tell whether an image has been processed on a
> Windows machine or a Mac.

actually, there is.

> > Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
> > mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.
>
> The Windows market is much larger. Adobe switches from primary development for
> Mac to the PC years ago.

totally wrong.

> That is, today Photoshop is developed first for the
> PC, then it is ported to the Mac,

absolutely and without question, wrong.

photoshop is developed using a custom cross platform framework for both
platforms at the same time.

> whereas in the old days it was the other way
> around. Which doesn't really affect anything, anyway, since it works much the
> same on both platforms.

it's identical on both platforms.

[nospam]

In article <jlvl38pnu2oqcfg86...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> My understanding is that Adobe develops all their software in C++ and
> then (cross) compiles separately for the Windows and Apple
> environments.

they develop using various languages, including c, c++, objective-c,
lua and assembly. they use cross platform frameworks for mac/pc and the
bulk of the apps are the same codebase. they do *not* write for one and
port to the other.

[nospam]

In article <lkrl38le86tmd52fb...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is abysmal.

true.

> Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
> Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure than any
> standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).

false. unix is more secure than windows.

[nospam]

In article <oorl38duc8hqhb8e6...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It is no offshoot.
> > It is UNIX.
> > BSD based.
> > POSIX Compliant.
> > UNIX 03 certified.
> >
> > You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
> > the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
> > separately installed).
>
> Legally it's not UNIX because of some trademark issues.

legally it's unix.

> In any case, there's nothing ideal about UNIX, especially on the desktop.

plain unix by itself is a very poor choice for the desktop.

however, mac os x is a *lot* more than plain unix.

> And UNIX is buried so deeply beneath proprietary code on Macs

nonsense. launch terminal and have at it, do whatever command line
stuff you want. it's all there.

> that it really
> can't be referred to as UNIX, anyway.

it can and it is.

[nospam]

In article <isw-EF40B0.23071426082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw

<i...@witzend.com> wrote:

> > I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
> > interesting...
> >
> > Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>
> It's possible to do nearly the same set of tasks on either platform (and
> also on Linux, for that matter). The difference lies in how easy (or
> difficult) it is to convince the computer to do what you want it to.
>
> Sort of the same way that any non-broken automobile will manage to get
> you to where you want to go, but the trip is a lot more pleasant with
> some cars than with others.

exactly.

[nospam]

In article <DcWdnVT8rPX7nqbN...@giganews.com>, Dudley

Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> >> All guts and glory when you're telling a blind guy you know a better way
> >> for him to work, but not so gutsy when the spotlight shines back your way?
> >
> > i never said i know a better way for you to work.
> >
> > all i did was refute your bogus claims.
> >
> > you won't admit you're wrong so now you're trying to shift it into
> > something else.
>
> Refute my bogus claims?

yes.

> How can my asertian that I don't like apple

that is not the bogus part.

> and am not likely to ever buy
> one of their blind unfriendly products again be considered bogus?

that part is definitely bogus.

apple's products are *not* blind unfriendly. quite the opposite. apple
spends a *lot* of time making their products easy to use for people
with visual impairments, hearing impairments and mobility impairments.
their products are *very* blind friendly.

> All that says is that I don't like the company or its products, and that I
> consider their lineup unfriendly to somebody with my degree of vision loss.

what it says is that you can't see past your hatred to even give it a
fair chance. that's really quite sad.

> Given you don't have my likes, dislikes or vision loss, I fail to see how
> you are in a position to confidently claim my assertian as bogus.

it has nothing to do with your likes or dislikes or your ability to see.

for example, one of your claims was that the ipad can't be used by
blind people. that's bullshit. it turns out that not only can an ipad
be used by blind people, but two organizations for blind people love
the ipad and think it's fantastic. i posted the links, as well as
another link from two blind people who actually use an ipad who also
love it.

[nospam]

In article <nvrl38lue33pd4i2l...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
> > systems ...
>
> Not true. The Windows NT security model is much more advanced than the
> standard UNIX security model. UNIX was never designed to be secure, and it's a
> Swiss cheese. Ironically, it was inspired by Multics, still the most secure
> general-purpose operating system ever designed. But security was one of the
> things that UNIX sacrificed for the sake of simplification (it wasn't
> considered necessary back then).

what kind of drugs have you been taking, and i'd suggest taking a
smaller dose going forward.

> > ... but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
> > superiority are all that accurate.
>
> Same hardware.

nope. not the same hardware.

[nospam]

In article <fhsl38t18rt1uh2au...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > and there's also support.
>
> A system that needs support is either defective or badly designed.

more idiocy.

> It's better to have a good computer that never fails and comes with no support
> than to have a bad computer that fails regularly but has excellent support.

which computer never fails and where can i buy one?

we live in an imperfect world. stuff breaks. stuff wears out and needs
to be replaced. stuff needs to be upgraded. sometimes people need
someone to teach them how to do something.

[nospam]

In article <qksl389t6cjcjo2gm...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

who cares. most people don't build their own pcs and they certainly
don't build their own laptops.

and actually, you can build your own mac, it's just pointless.

[-hh]

tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> >tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
> >> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
>

> >some might, but most don't.
>
> >people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
> >pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
> >given task.
>
> No, PC users don't bash Macs.  We bash Mac-pimps.

That's still bashing.

> The machine is
> quite good.  It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
> that we make fun of.  We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
> don't dick-wave here.

That's quite a chip on your shoulder there, Tony. Perhaps you could
point to something specific that was done in this specific thread that
caused you to lash out with so much loathing and hate?

Oh, right, here it is:

"Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."

That's attacking the inanimate product, not a human "pimp".


In other related news:

" I've replaced computers, but that's because I never bought a top-of-
the-line computer to begin with."

A common Anti-Mac complaint is that they're "overpriced", which has
been mentioned in this thread. When one objectively examines that
assertion, what one finds are three factors:

1. On an 'equal hardware' basis, the so-called "Apple Tax" is
typically 10% or less. YMMV on if the various differences are worth
it.

2. Apple has a small product line, which can result in wide gaps in
the hardware configurations and similarly large price increments too.
To a certain degree this can be considered another part of the "Tax"
too, but this is a misnomer, since any one manufacturer's product line
will always be a subset of their overall industry. For example, as
broad as Dell's product line is, it is still less than (Dell + HP +
Apple + Lenovo + etc) combined.

3. The law of diminishing returns applies in the performance of IT
equipment, with gaining each +10% of performance costing more than the
last. As such, the first ~50% of max performance comes quite cheaply
today. If this level of hardware suits one's individual needs, then
great! One can even buy used or discontinued models at steep
discounts. However, this is an individual requirement, and it
provides little guidance for those users for which it does not apply.


> >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
> >which you are trying to deny.
>
> I have no bias against the machine or anything about it.  I do have a
> bias against people like you.

"Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."

Right out of the gate, even before anyone stepped forward to say
anything positive about a particular brand of hardware. And then when
someone did step forward, you attacked them too.

Very disappointing ... and furthermore, the point doesn't even address
the OP's question, at least in a civilized manner.

To retate Tony's point, he doesn't like Macs because he believes that
its user base are smug & arrogant.

Got it. Now let's move on.


> >have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
> >are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.
>
> I'm sure a Mac could do what I want and need to do.  But, since my PC
> already does that, why should I not stay with my PC?


So then just stay with what works for you, and live and let live. If
the OP wants to take the risk that he's going to turn into a dickhead
by using a Mac, that's his business ... and of course, all that Tony
has demonstrated is that having a Mac is not actually a strict
requirement for that :-)


-hh

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:48:27 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You may have finally come across an area where Macs are not only
clearly superior, but amazingly different. You have a way of using
Photoshop without the keyboard or the mouse or finding files to open.
How is that done? Voice command? Mental telepathy? Poltergeists?

To say that using Photoshop with two machines with different key
factors is the same is patently ridiculous.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Mayayana]

Lately I've seen a lot of articles along this line:

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/commentary/personal-tech/notebooks/240002204

The gist of it is that newer Mac products are coming
with the internals embedded in a lump of resin or glue,
with no upgradeable parts. But the people buying those
products just don't mind. It's not about computing. It's
about convenience, stability and successful advertising.

Apple customers I know have one or both of two motivations:

1) They don't want to deal with tech. and malware issues,
and they think they won't have to with a Mac. (For now, at
least, they're right. Apple is the new AOL. AOL was overpriced
and restrictive, but their website worked and they did a very
good job of shielding their customers from malware without
their customers needing to understand the details.)

2) The same simple projection that creates the art world:
"That thing is classy. If I can own it I'll be classy."

(Who but Steve Jobs could con people into thinking that
they can manifest as independent-minded non-conformists
through the act of buying a fashionable product that
millions of other people are buying? In fact, Apple products
have actually elevated to the level of "art" in the eyes of
many Apple followers.)

Ironically, many of the Mac people I know are running
Windows in a VM inside OSX, so that they can run their
Windows software. They're essentially paying 2-3 times
the cost of a PC, plus the cost of a Windows disk, for
malware protection and a very nice looking container.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:27:17 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>
>"Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."
>

>That's attacking the inanimate product, not a human "pimp".

A building with pews and an altar is not to be blamed for the presence
of religious cultists. A Mac is not to be blamed for attracting
cultists of the nospam sort. It is not the inanimate object that is
being ridiculed.

[George Kerby]

On 8/27/12 6:27 AM, in article
9c5833b4-1b2e-4081...@o19g2000vbo.googlegroups.com, "-hh"

LOL! Well said!

[ray]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:52:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> ray writes:
>
>> IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
>> best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.
>
> There's no such thing as Linux. There are only endless different systems
> based on a Linux kernel.

OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?

>
> And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
> abysmal.

Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
anything else - for any given need there are generally several
applications to choose from. It is true that there are not many
commercial applications.

>
> Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
> Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure
> than any standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).

I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it was
unsurpassed - which is true. MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly,
trails in that area.

[ray]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> On 2012.08.26 11:51 , ray wrote:

>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate
>>> rather interesting...
>>>
>>> Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?
>>>

>>> In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics,
>>> I've never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than
>>> "the mac quality is unmatched."
>>>

>>> Interestingly, a graphic file is nothing more than a bunch of data
>>> that describes where each pixel goes and what colour that pixel should
>>> be, and, in the case of 32 bit images, how transparent that pixel is
>>> set.
>>>
>>> The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of
>>> info.
>>>
>>> Basically the hardware is responsible for storing that data and
>>> getting those bits of info into memory, where the software works with
>>> the data. Then, the hardware takes the data in memory and displays it
>>> on a screen. The hardware is really only responsible for moving the
>>> data around, not for creating it or creatively processing it.

>>>
>>> All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can
>>> do the job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer
>>> shades of red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the
>>> user of the camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).
>>>

>>> Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does
>>> into mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.
>>>

>>> I wonder why that is...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley

>>
>> IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
>> best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.
>

> Linux has been the NEXT THING since about 2000 - at that point in time
> it had "arrived" as a desktop environment for the masses. It was going
> to replace Windows outright and possibly turn off Apple's lights.

Funny, I don't recall saying that. The point is that MS has a virtual
monopoly on reasonably priced, readily available systems.

>
> Sure Wilbur.
>
> As a home/office desktop environment it absolutely sucks. And that is
> why only geeks use it for such.

B.S. It works fine for home systems and office systems as well. There is
precious little it does not do as well. However, the OP was NOT about
home/office use.

>
> For fucks sake it is FREE! ... and only has a couple percent of the
> desktop market. If something is so ridiculously good and free, everone
> should be using it. (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter - all very
> good to their users and free and immensely popular [no I don't use
> facebook or Twitter])
>
> Yet people pay MS' ridiculous premium prices for MS Windows (and pay for
> malware protection too) and eschew Linux.

Primarily because they have little choice in the matter - visit your
local Staples or OfficeMax and ask to see a Linux computer!


>
> It has utterly failed to take on the home/office after a 10+ years
> assault.

Again, OP did not inquire about use for home/office, though we've been
using it exclusively for both for about 10 years.

>
> The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of the
> issue. (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of horse
> dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").

Not much the average person needs to do that can't be done with the Linux
equivalents. You obviously have not tried it!

>
> Mountain Lion (upgrade) is $20. And that one (downloaded update)
> payment applies to ALL the Macs in a house. Got 15 intel Macs? Fine
> load 'em all up. And there are no idiotic feature levels like Windows
> (except the OS X server, an additional $20).
>
> Linux is for industrial, embedded, databases, super-computing and so on.
> It is horrid as a desktop home/office machine. Yes I've been there.
> Useless.

No it is not 'horrid' as a desktop home/office machine - though, once
more - THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OP ASKED ABOUT.

>
> Your "stability and security unsurpassed" claim is specious too. Indeed
> with the encrypted volume scheme on a Mac the hard disk is effectively
> scrambled at all times that the key is not loaded. That's secure. As
> to malware prevention Linux's sole advantage is that it is not targetted
> as much as Windows.

So, tell me how it IS surpassed.

>
> Linux (like OS X) depends on the user to keep the barbarians out of the
> gate. A well written attack with a dash of social engineering will get
> malware in there. But I guess malware writers consider Linux to be too
> lean, too savvy and especially too poor to bother attacking.

You have your opinions, which you have voiced (few 'facts' included and
many of those are wrong) - and I have mine.

It is rather specious to talk about what is 'best' in the first place.
What is 'best' for one person is not necessarily 'best' for anyone else.

[Bruce]

"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>Apple is the new AOL. AOL was overpriced
>and restrictive, but their website worked and they did a very
>good job of shielding their customers from malware without
>their customers needing to understand the details.

I don't see that Apple and AOL they have anything in common. In fact
their philosophy seem to have been diametrically opposite.

Apple offers upmarket products for discerning individuals. AOL took
the internet, until then mostly the preserve of educated, intelligent
people, and took it firmly downmarket. In order to make it
universally accessible, they offered it to everyone, dumbing it down
in the process. Remember "Eternal September"?

Perhaps you were thinking of CompuServe, whose upmarket ethos was at
least partly comparable to Apple's. Eventually CompuServe's business
model was bypassed by the growth of other ISPs. In its dying days,
Compuserve was taken over by AOL which also seems to have died.

[-hh]

On Aug 27, 11:25 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> > The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of the
> > issue.  (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of horse
> > dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").
>
> Not much the average person needs to do that can't be done with the Linux
> equivalents. You obviously have not tried it!

Unfortunately, this is <rec.photo.digital>, not
<comp.average.person>.

As such, considerations of a system's suitability for elements centric
to digitally based photography - - which indisputably includes the
marketplace's leading software products - - have to be a major
consideration.


Granted, one could try to use Photoshop/Lightroom while under WINE,
but that's an additional abstraction layer that can only hinder
performance & reliability.

Similarly, one could consider the use of GIMP, and while there's a
decent argument to be made that GIMP can suffice because "most"
Photoshop users don't need all of the features of Photoshop, what that
really means is that for this subset of users, their reference
baseline probably isn't Photoshop, but is Photoshop Elements (PE).

FYI, that (PE) is something to keep in mind when the pros/cons
discussion invariablly turns to the cost of the productivity tools ...
and that's even before we recognize the marketplace reality that a
license for PE can often be found as a bundled freebee with the
purchase of a scanner, camera, all-in-one print/scanner, etc.


-hh

[-hh]

On Aug 27, 10:00 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:27:17 -0700 (PDT), -hh
>

> <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."
>
> >That's attacking the inanimate product, not a human "pimp".
>
> A building with pews and an altar is not to be blamed for the presence
> of religious cultists.  A Mac is not to be blamed for attracting
> cultists of the nospam sort.  It is not the inanimate object that is
> being ridiculed.

You're engaging in a vastly generalized Ad Hominem attack ... and upon
what basis?

At best, it is an unstated _inference_ that this so-called "cultist"
is irrational. But you've not articulated why, such as that they were
a sucker for Steve Job's "Reality Distortion Field" marketing, or
someone who simply hates Bill Gates, or some other explanation.


But what's more disturbing is that when you claimed that the hardware
is separate and distinct from its consumer base, the implications are
that there was then logically no reason for you to have mentioned said
consumers whatsoever in the first place ... except to try to link them
toegher. And why would one even try to link them together if not to
'bash'?

Yup, you've created for yourself your very own "Catch-22" self-
contradiction.


Literary reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22


-hh

[ray]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:17:14 -0700, -hh wrote:

> On Aug 27, 11:25 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>> >
>> > The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of
>> > the issue.  (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of
>> > horse dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").
>>
>> Not much the average person needs to do that can't be done with the
>> Linux equivalents. You obviously have not tried it!
>
> Unfortunately, this is <rec.photo.digital>, not <comp.average.person>.
>
> As such, considerations of a system's suitability for elements centric
> to digitally based photography - - which indisputably includes the
> marketplace's leading software products - - have to be a major
> consideration.
>
>
> Granted, one could try to use Photoshop/Lightroom while under WINE, but
> that's an additional abstraction layer that can only hinder performance
> & reliability.

Actually, I've seen instances where software runs FASTER under WINE on
Linux than on MS.

>
> Similarly, one could consider the use of GIMP, and while there's a
> decent argument to be made that GIMP can suffice because "most"
> Photoshop users don't need all of the features of Photoshop, what that
> really means is that for this subset of users, their reference baseline
> probably isn't Photoshop, but is Photoshop Elements (PE).
>
> FYI, that (PE) is something to keep in mind when the pros/cons
> discussion invariablly turns to the cost of the productivity tools ...
> and that's even before we recognize the marketplace reality that a
> license for PE can often be found as a bundled freebee with the purchase
> of a scanner, camera, all-in-one print/scanner, etc.
>
>
> -hh

As you (almost) stated, the name of the game is sufficiency. As long as
one has what he/she needs, that's what counts. The state of the art has
advanced sufficiently that most people will find that they can do what
they need (or wnat) to do (speaking only of digital photo processing -
since, as you pointed out, that is what this group is supposed to be
about) with their platform of choice. In spite of rumours to the contrary.

[nospam]

In article <k1fsl3$42t$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Lately I've seen a lot of articles along this line:
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/byte/commentary/personal-tech/notebooks/2400022
> 04
>
> The gist of it is that newer Mac products are coming
> with the internals embedded in a lump of resin or glue,
> with no upgradeable parts. But the people buying those
> products just don't mind. It's not about computing. It's
> about convenience, stability and successful advertising.

people buy computers to use and do work, not open them up. if they
break, they take them somewhere to be repaired.

how often do you open up your tv set? microwave oven? cellphone?

> Ironically, many of the Mac people I know are running
> Windows in a VM inside OSX, so that they can run their
> Windows software. They're essentially paying 2-3 times
> the cost of a PC, plus the cost of a Windows disk, for
> malware protection and a very nice looking container.

some do, but what you're missing is they can run mac *and* windows
software on the same machine (and unix software too). they have a much
wider choice, plus the convenience of having it all on the same
computer.

[nospam]

In article <aa1hbk...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
wrote:

> > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
> > abysmal.
>
> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
> applications to choose from.

nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.

macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the
most of any platform.

> It is true that there are not many
> commercial applications.

exactly. so it's *less*.

> > Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
> > Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure
> > than any standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).
>
> I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it was
> unsurpassed - which is true. MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly,
> trails in that area.

true.

[ray]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700, nospam wrote:

> In article <aa1hbk...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
>> > abysmal.
>>
>> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
>> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
>> applications to choose from.
>
> nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.
>
> macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
> ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
> software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the most
> of any platform.

Using a virtual machine, you can run all three on all three, so your
point is pointless.

>
>> It is true that there are not many
>> commercial applications.
>
> exactly. so it's *less*.

That is nonsense. There are more non-commercial applications in the world
than commercial ones.

[Mxsmanic]

nospam writes:

> nonsense. launch terminal and have at it, do whatever command line
> stuff you want. it's all there.

Nobody buys a Mac to run UNIX.

[Mxsmanic]

ray writes:

> B.S. It works fine for home systems and office systems as well. There is
> precious little it does not do as well. However, the OP was NOT about
> home/office use.

Linux is useless on the desktop, and there is no indication that this will
change in the foreseeable future.

> Primarily because they have little choice in the matter - visit your
> local Staples or OfficeMax and ask to see a Linux computer!

No, they would buy Windows anyway, because it's easier to use than Linux and
supports about a million more applications.

Windows is a good compromise between the walled garden of the Mac and the
anarchy of Linux.

> Not much the average person needs to do that can't be done with the Linux
> equivalents.

Sometimes equivalents are not enough. Windows is the safe bet for the average
user, unless he wants to spring for a Mac. Linux is not even on the radar.

> It is rather specious to talk about what is 'best' in the first place.
> What is 'best' for one person is not necessarily 'best' for anyone else.

Windows is best on the desktop for 90-95% of users. The rest may be better off
with a Mac. The only people who might like Linux are those who prefer to
tinker with computers for the sake of doing so, rather than actually do
productive work.

[Mxsmanic]

ray writes:

> Actually, I've seen instances where software runs FASTER under WINE on
> Linux than on MS.

Sure you have. Show me the benchmark.

All else being equal, nothing ever runs faster in emulation.

[Mxsmanic]

nospam writes:

> false. unix is more secure than windows.

I've looked at the source code for both. Windows is way, way ahead. It still
has security features that have not been exposed in the user interface, mainly
because users would be overwhelmed.

[Mxsmanic]

ray writes:

> OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?

No. There's one Windows, one Mac OS, and ten thousand Linux distributions. I
prefer to have a single version of the OS.

> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
> applications to choose from. It is true that there are not many
> commercial applications.

There's virtually nothing useful on Linux. There are millions of cottage
applications for Windows that don't exist for any other platform.

> I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it was
> unsurpassed - which is true.

Lots and lots of operating systems had security better than Linux, even before
Linux existed. That includes Windows NT.

> MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly, trails in that area.

Windows NT is the most secure mass-market desktop OS available.

[Mxsmanic]

ray writes:

> Using a virtual machine, you can run all three on all three, so your
> point is pointless.

If all your applications are Windows applications or Mac applications, there
is no point in running any virtual machine. And many desktop users can do very
well with applications only for Windows or the Mac.

> That is nonsense. There are more non-commercial applications in the world
> than commercial ones.

Desktop applications for Linux and for UNIX systems and clones are scarce.

[Mxsmanic]

nospam writes:

> what kind of drugs have you been taking, and i'd suggest taking a
> smaller dose going forward.

No drugs. Just source code for all of these operating systems.

> nope. not the same hardware.

Macs are PCs in terms of hardware, except for a few minor details.

[-hh]

On Aug 27, 2:08 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:17:14 -0700, -hh wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 11:25 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> >> > The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of
> >> > the issue.  (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of
> >> > horse dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").
>
> >> Not much the average person needs to do that can't be done with the
> >> Linux equivalents. You obviously have not tried it!
>
> > Unfortunately, this is <rec.photo.digital>, not <comp.average.person>.
>
> > As such, considerations of a system's suitability for elements centric
> > to digitally based photography - - which indisputably includes the
> > marketplace's leading software products - - have to be a major
> > consideration.
>
> > Granted, one could try to use Photoshop/Lightroom while under WINE, but
> > that's an additional abstraction layer that can only hinder performance
> > & reliability.
>
> Actually, I've seen instances where software runs FASTER under WINE on
> Linux than on MS.

I'm not necessarily surprised to hear that, although 'speed' is not
the only metric of interest: for example, there's also stability and
data integrity.

Humorously, to have a Windows machine that "crashes faster" isn't
necessarily an enviable feature.

> > Similarly, one could consider the use of GIMP, and while there's a
> > decent argument to be made that GIMP can suffice because "most"
> > Photoshop users don't need all of the features of Photoshop, what that
> > really means is that for this subset of users, their reference baseline
> > probably isn't Photoshop, but is Photoshop Elements (PE).
>
> > FYI, that (PE) is something to keep in mind when the pros/cons
> > discussion invariablly turns to the cost of the productivity tools ...
> > and that's even before we recognize the marketplace reality that a
> > license for PE can often be found as a bundled freebee with the purchase
> > of a scanner, camera, all-in-one print/scanner, etc.
>
> > -hh
>
> As you (almost) stated, the name of the game is sufficiency. As long as
> one has what he/she needs, that's what counts.

Yes, although it is a bit more than merely sufficiency (although this
can depend on how it is defined): there's also a consideration for
productivity.

For example, a machine which is merely _sufficient_ for a conducting
particular workflow versus a machine that can perform the same task(s)
more quickly will result in a workflow productivity gain. Since
'faster hardware' usually costs more, this can be viewed as a ROI
(Return on Investment) type of question and the details of the ROI
depend on a lot of factors, including what one's time is worth ...
which can vary widely between a hobbyist versus a professional, etc.

To make a long story short - - and to get back to the OP's underlying
question - - the Hardware brand and OS isn't the endpoint: the goal
is to utilize these tools for some specific objective, and it is the
combination of the investment costs for those tools and the time (and
value of said time) of that user that eventually determine what are
the important factors (for that specific use case) with which to make
a good & informed decision.

To be overly broad in a generalization, part of the common appeal for
the Mac is that the PC requires less "care and feeding" by its
operator, which has postivie productivity implications. To peel this
onion some, this has IMO become a bit less significant of an
attribute, not because OS X has gotten worse, but because Windows has
(finally) become less bad. In any case, the bottom line is that the
difference has narrowed.

> The state of the art has
> advanced sufficiently that most people will find that they can do what
> they need (or wnat) to do (speaking only of digital photo processing -
> since, as you pointed out, that is what this group is supposed to be
> about) with their platform of choice. In spite of rumours to the contrary.

Yes, that's also a factor, and it has manifested itself with a broad
marketplace shift from desktops to laptops. Today's higher end (ie,
i5 and i7 CPU) based laptops have more computational horsepower than
even higher end tower desktops from 4-5 years ago...although there's
still trade-offs to be considered: thermal management being an
example.

But what's probably far more important than these Hardware or OS
questions is a robust data management plan, so as to protect the
digital photographer from catastrophic loss of his images due to an IT
failure.

In this regards, Apple's "Time Machine" portion of OS X is brain-dead-
simple to use and quite effective. True, true from a pedantica
standpoint it isn't anything that can't be duplicated by a
knowledgeable user with good backup software tools, but in line with
the mantra of "The best camera to have is the one that's with you",
Time Machine is baked into OS X and extremely simple to impliment.

So I'd say that the obvious/simple recommendation is to ask the OP
what their current IT data backup plans are, and if they have none (or
a really poor one), then I'd recommend a Mac for them simply because
to the best of my knowledge, it has the most brain-dead-easy backup
tool and thus, that product has the best odds of the OP starting to
actually make/use backups which is probably the single most important
IT factor for them...afterall, it doesn't do one much good to have
high marks on any other metric if you have no data to work with.


-hh

[Mxsmanic]

Bruce writes:

> Apple offers upmarket products for discerning individuals.

Desktop computers are like toasters or washing machines. There's no need for
"upmarket" products or "discernment."

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:36:21 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>
>Yup, you've created for yourself your very own "Catch-22" self-
>contradiction.
>
>
>Literary reference:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22

Ah, a reference to one of my favorite books. So much a favorite, that
I keep an old paperback edition in the nightstand. It's one of those
rare books that one can plunge into at any place and read with joy and
laughter without updating oneself with the preceding chapters.

nospam may be closest to the character "Hungry Joe". Hungry Joe
claims to be a photographer, but his pictures never come out. Not
that nospam is being accused of taking photographs of the same subject
dear to Hungry Joe.

nospam has some Col Cargill characteristics. Cargill was a failed and
talent-devoid marketing executive before the war. Possibly a marketing
executive who proposed doing market surveys in the coach class of
commuter airlines.

"Catch-22" was published in 1961. When I bought my copy, I was fresh
out of grad school and taking the Chicago El to work at the "Chicago
Tribune". I would start laughing so hard that I had to put the book
down. Minutes later, just thinking about what I'd read, I'd start
laughing uncontrollably. People would move away from me thinking I
was demented. I'd laugh so hard that my cheeks would hurt; almost as
if they had been - like Orr's - stuffed with crabapples.

>But what's more disturbing is that when you claimed that the hardware
>is separate and distinct from its consumer base, the implications are
>that there was then logically no reason for you to have mentioned said
>consumers whatsoever in the first place ... except to try to link them
>toegher. And why would one even try to link them together if not to
>'bash'?

You really shouldn't try to be clever by citing literary references
unless you really understand the literary reference. Catch-22 has
nothing to with the linking of one thing to another arriving at a
logical conclusion. In fact, it takes the opposite position: that
two diametrically opposed positions (you can be grounded if you are
insane, but you can't be insane if you want to be grounded) are
inherently self-contradictory and therefore illogical.

I have not claimed that the hardware is "separate and distinct from
the consumer base" (for that statement is also inherently
self-contradictory) but that it possible to ridicule the user while
having respect for the hardware. And, for that matter, respect for
other users of the same hardware.

nospam would like to believe that because I ridicule his Mac-pimp
proclamations of the Grail-like qualities of the Mac, that I have some
bias or dislike of Macs and Mac users. That's not the case. My
distaste is only of nospam and any other dick-wavers that feel they
acquired some superiority in choosing a particular brand of hardware.

[ray]

Amen. But WINE is not an emulator. It is an application interface - big
difference.

[ray]

I love it when people tell me I can't do what I'm doing!
I've been doing productive work on *nix systems for about 20 years now.

[nospam]

In article <aa1v2b...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>

wrote:

> >> > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
> >> > abysmal.
> >>
> >> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
> >> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
> >> applications to choose from.
> >
> > nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.
> >
> > macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
> > ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
> > software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the most
> > of any platform.
>
> Using a virtual machine, you can run all three on all three, so your
> point is pointless.

with the associated hassles, limitations and overhead.

virtual machines are great for a lot of things but i'd not want to run
all of my apps in a vm all the time, especially the memory intensive
ones.

meanwhile, a mac runs mac and linux apps natively, with only windows
apps needing a virtual machine.

> >> It is true that there are not many
> >> commercial applications.
> >
> > exactly. so it's *less*.
>
> That is nonsense. There are more non-commercial applications in the world
> than commercial ones.

i don't know if that's true (and i doubt you do either), but what
you're missing is that it's not either/or. it's a *union* of both, and
without any need of a virtual machine.

not only is it more in number, but the commercial apps are generally
better quality since they are usually much more capable and polished,
e.g., photoshop, lightroom & final cut pro. in other words, users are
more productive.

[nospam]

In article <h0in385au73tiu0j1...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

then it doesn't matter if unix is buried, as you previously claimed.
try to keep your story straight.

and actually, many do buy a mac to run unix, since they get unix and
open source software *plus* quality commercial software. a lot of new
mac users were ex-linux users.

[nospam]

In article <r1in38t85b8tipkhu...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Windows is a good compromise between the walled garden of the Mac and the
> anarchy of Linux.

macs are not a walled garden. you can run anything you want on them,
including just about all unix software. write your own software if you
want.

> Windows is best on the desktop for 90-95% of users. The rest may be better off
> with a Mac. The only people who might like Linux are those who prefer to
> tinker with computers for the sake of doing so, rather than actually do
> productive work.

that part is true.

[nospam]

In article <eain38l3oa9tftat4...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Actually, I've seen instances where software runs FASTER under WINE on
> > Linux than on MS.
>
> Sure you have. Show me the benchmark.

yea, let's see the benchmark.

there might be a rare instance where it is slightly faster, but just
about all apps will be similar in performance, if they work at all
under wine, that is. not all do. in fact, many do not. that's why linux
users are frequently rebooting into windows or using a windows vm.

> All else being equal, nothing ever runs faster in emulation.

wine isn't an emulator.

[nospam]

In article <1din38p23dt4ipbar...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > false. unix is more secure than windows.
>
> I've looked at the source code for both.

where did you get the source code to windows?

and *which* unix did you look at, assuming you actually did?

> Windows is way, way ahead.

what colour is the sky on your planet?

> It still
> has security features that have not been exposed in the user interface, mainly
> because users would be overwhelmed.

specifics?

[nospam]

In article <kein385t6kne2sflu...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?
>
> No. There's one Windows, one Mac OS, and ten thousand Linux distributions. I
> prefer to have a single version of the OS.

actually there are many versions of windows and mac os.

win xp, vista, win7, win8 plus all of the service packs, as well as os
x 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 plus all of the incremental updates.

> > MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly, trails in that area.
>
> Windows NT is the most secure mass-market desktop OS available.

troll.

[nospam]

In article <vmin38pj4fqll5m1s...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > what kind of drugs have you been taking, and i'd suggest taking a
> > smaller dose going forward.
>
> No drugs. Just source code for all of these operating systems.

then perhaps you need some drugs to help with your hallucinations.

> > nope. not the same hardware.
>
> Macs are PCs in terms of hardware, except for a few minor details.

in other words, not the same. try to keep your story straight.

and it's *much* more than minor. i'd even say it's major.

how many pcs have thunderbolt? firewire 800? bluetooth 4? backlit
keyboards? retina displays?

[ray]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:28:48 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> ray writes:
>
>> OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?
>
> No. There's one Windows, one Mac OS, and ten thousand Linux
> distributions. I prefer to have a single version of the OS.

Sure. Then what are Win7 starter, Win7 home versions, win7 pro versions,
etc.

There are not ten thousand Linux distributions. According to
distrowatch.com, there are about 300. But you don't have to use all of
them or even try all of them. In our house, we use one distribution on
all six computers.

>
>> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
>> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
>> applications to choose from. It is true that there are not many
>> commercial applications.
>
> There's virtually nothing useful on Linux. There are millions of cottage
> applications for Windows that don't exist for any other platform.
>
>> I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it
>> was unsurpassed - which is true.
>
> Lots and lots of operating systems had security better than Linux, even
> before Linux existed. That includes Windows NT.

Right. That's why they need all the malware protection, bsod decoders,
etc.

>
>> MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly, trails in that area.
>
> Windows NT is the most secure mass-market desktop OS available.

Sure it is. It's also completely outdated.