Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Would you be happy if every car you drove had a slightly different layout of
> controls from every other car?


they do.

headlights, wipers, heater/air conditioner, rear window defroster,
transmission (on the column or on the floor, and for manual
transmission the order and number of the gears), emergency flashers,
horn (especially with airbags), radio, seat adjustments, door handles
and other controls are all in different places in different cars.

some recent cars have lcd displays and menus for many of these
controls, making it vary even more. if it includes a gps navigation
system, then that also works differently too.

even the steering wheel, gas and brake pedals vary between left-hand
drive and right-hand drive cars.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Because in general it works better, less system problems,
> > virtually no problems with viruses and you get most of the software
> > you need as part of the package.

>
> "It works better" is extremely subjective, and won't stand up to careful
> scrutiny. There are few viruses because there are few users.


no, it's because it's substantially harder to write mac malware without
requiring the user to do something to install it. it's trivial for
windows, which is why windows malware is so common.

> And virtually
> nothing of what I'd want would be included in the package.


specifically, what?

> > People tend to find macs more intuitive too
> > although if you've used a PC for years you might find it more
> > difficult to start with.

>
> Macs used to be more intuitive. Today it's a wash.


if it's a wash, then why get windows?

there is less malware on a mac and it can run more software, so why not
get a mac? it's 'a wash' as you say.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Can you not differenciate between GUI and innards/features/programs
> > available etc.?

>
> Yes, but there really isn't much of a difference.


the other day you said there was a difference which required retraining
40,000 employees, an extra expense that made macs more costly. now you
say there really isn't much of a difference.

can't you keep your story straight?

> The reason Windows wins is
> that it's more of a mainstream product, and it costs less.


actually, windows costs *more*.

mac os x 10.6 is $29 for one seat and $49 for 5 seat family pack.
windows ultimate (the equivalent to mac os x) is much more than that
for *one* seat, even if you get an discounted oem version (as opposed
to full retail).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Reilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
On Thu, 26 May 2011 04:39:54 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Windows does not have "distributions."


Sure it does. There's the Dell distribution, which comes whith it's
peculiar collection of crapware, demoware and odd-ball device drivers,
the HP version, the IBM version, the Toshiba version,.... No shipping PC
or laptop comes with an empty hard drive and a "stock" off-the-shelf copy
of pristine Windows. More's the pity...

Cheers,

--
Andrew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> If by "Windows" you mean "Windows, it's office packet and
>> nothing else" you might be right.


> Office represents a lot of training,


MS office is obviously rather difficult.

> so if people can be hired who already
> know it, that's a considerable savings. The same is true for Outlook,


Doing things well in Outlook is indeed rather difficult.
When does it get threading?

> or
> browsers,


IE should be trivial to learn for a Firefox or Chrome user.
Except that features are missing.

> or even the basic user interface.


Double click is hard to learn. You need single click.


>> And I submit that for a person a Linux or Mac desktop would only
>> be unsolvable puzzling if she didn't know what she was doing and
>> was using the windows desktop only by rote. That person would
>> be unfit for many computer related tasks anyway.


> Most of the population is like that. Most people don't care about computers
> any more than they care about washing machines.


Washing machines don't have over 100 buttons and a mouse.

> The simplest mainstream
> solution is thus the best choice for them.


Nope.
The best solution for them is what is most intuitive. I'll just
point out that to shut down a computer, pressing "Start" isn't.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> I see. Now, assume I am Joe Windowsprogrammer. I need to get
>> Windows to work on some processor and hardware architecture
>> it's not been ported to. Fortunately, I am moderately rich.
>> What do I do?


> Why would you want to port it?


You're evading the question.

In Open Source Land, the answer is: "Check if someone is
already working on it, grab the source, code (or let code).

>> That would argue against Windows, as it needs support.


> The vast majority of Windows users never require support.


.... from MS, as they get support from their dealer, friends,
internal IT/helpdesk department, etc.

> As always in the
> support world, five percent of users generate about 95% of calls.


And?

>> Sure. There are also dozens of versions of Windows: Windows
>> 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, ...


> Windows does not have "distributions."


See the other reply: it has. Lots of. Unstandardized ones.

> In fact, I can't think of any OS that
> has such a concept, except Linux.


BSD.

> And that's because Linux itself isn't a
> complete operating system.


Linux-the-kernel isn't.
GNU/Linux is --- and a lot more than Windows.

>> Whereas Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate contains every product
>> you need for a production environment: Office, compilers,
>> IDEs, Perl, Python, PHP, webserver, debugger, database, virus
>> scanners, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. etc. etc.


> I haven't looked at what Windows 7 contains, but it doesn't contain all that.


But you are aware that Linux distributions offer exactly
that: every product you need for a production environment?

> It contains all the system software you need, however.


If you define "system software" as "is contained in Windows".
You are aware of Windows Sysinternals?

>> There is, however, no standard for Windows: just what MS
>> decides should be done.


> Same thing.


Sure. Just like chess: the rules are as I randomly decide to
play the game, ever changing. It's the same thing as, say,
published rules to be abided by all.

>> Ah, so choice *is* bad.


> The more homogenous the user base, the lower the TCO.


And the more varied, the more you need to be able to adapt
to certain users. What Linux offers, to the point that MS is
afraid of the versatility:
http://blog.schatenseite.de/wp-conte...60227_msad.jpg

>> Like Linux?


> Linux has a single code base just for the kernel.


You'll have to decide at some point if you mean by "Linux"
"just the kernel" or "a/any Linux based distribution". Until
you do, I'll choose the interpretation that favours me.

> Other operating systems have
> a single code base for the entire OS.


Hmhm. Sure. Several single code bases, in fact, for each
program one. Sort of like Linux.
Code bases from different vendors for different products.
Sort of like Linux.
Code bases that are unavailable for almost all people.
Unlike Linux.

>> Which interface?


> The user interface.


Which users? Pointy-clicky, CLI, programmer, ...?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> And Windows fanatics will be very illogical and unreasonable
>> attacking other systems and defending Windows.


> There are very few Windows fanatics.


Oh, there are many. Lots more than Mac fanatics.

> Most users of Windows have no interest in
> computers, and thus have no emotional attachment to Windows or any other
> operating system.


Nonsensical. Most people have no interest in cars, maybe even
don't know how to check the oil, but form a strong emotional
attachment.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Savageduck writes:


>> Because it is a good choice for reaching an elegant solution to
>> multiple OS issues.


> Which issues?


Oh, you wouldn't know, you're too afraid to try it.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Savageduck writes:



>> If need be I can run all three OS's together freely exchanging files
>> between them.


> If you have to run multiple operating systems, it would seem that there's a
> problem with them. And exchanging files doesn't amount to much.


Yes, there are multiple problems with Windows.

>> This is all done seamlessly, and elegantly. This is not a feature
>> dedicated Windows machines offer.


> Dedicated Windows systems don't need it, as Windows does it all.


I see. Final Cut Pro?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
On May 26, 3:32*am, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Savageduck writes:
> > With my Intel MacBook Pro & iMac I can get the ease and stability of
> > OSX together with the versatility of Windows (run clean on a stand
> > alone partition, or with Parallels, or VM Fusion), or Linux.

>
> Windows XP is rock stable, and so are its descendants (although they are more
> bloated for no good reason).


No it crashes, it's more stable than W98 and the others before it.
As for bloated well that might be true but I think running 64 bit is s
a good reason
or will be in the future.


>
> > If need be I can run all three OS's together freely exchanging files
> > between them.

>
> If you have to run multiple operating systems, it would seem that there'sa
> problem with them.


That's like saying there's something wrong with a car X because others
choose other makes of car.

>And exchanging files doesn't amount to much.

Sometimes it's impossible.

>
> > This is all done seamlessly, and elegantly. This is not a feature
> > dedicated Windows machines offer.

>
> Dedicated Windows systems don't need it, as Windows does it all.


Windows does not do it all.

http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/...les/91927.aspx

"The Final Cut Studio, which includes other programs such as DVD
Studio Pro and Apple's Color, is a complete post-production workflow
that has incredibly powerful software allowing you to take very
specific control over almost every aspect of your film. The only catch
here is that Final Cut Pro is designed only for Macs, which leaves
Windows-based PCs out of the equation entirely"




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? bob Digital Photography 66 07-03-2011 10:02 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 24 06-08-2011 09:58 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 31 05-26-2011 11:20 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-20-2011 11:59 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-20-2011 11:54 PM



Advertisments