Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: What makes a mac better? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t951406-re-what-makes-a-mac-better.html)

ray 08-26-2012 03:51 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
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.



nospam 08-26-2012 05:57 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
In article <a9uuvpFjb6U12@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@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 08-26-2012 05:57 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
In article <346dndCQErAQy6fNnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Dudley
Hanks <dhanks@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>

nospam 08-27-2012 08:51 AM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
In article <lkrl38le86tmd52fbgm8nqhb6u0dv3gvk3@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@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 08-27-2012 08:51 AM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
In article <oorl38duc8hqhb8e6ihavss2m41p76mckv@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@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.

ray 08-27-2012 03:17 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
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 08-27-2012 03:25 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
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 ****s 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.

-hh 08-27-2012 05:17 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
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

ray 08-27-2012 06:08 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
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 08-27-2012 06:12 PM

Re: What makes a mac better?
 
In article <aa1hbkFjb6U13@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.