«

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:26:14 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 7/6/2011 8:05 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<4e13b184$0$12482$>, PeterN
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You think you need a 20" screen to create a slideshow?
>>>>
>>>> you may not 'need' it but it sure as hell makes it easier and more
>>>> enjoyable.
>>>>
>>>>> Who are you?
>>>>> Mr Magoo? My second monitor (I have two connected) is 17" diagonal
>>>>> and I could split the screen and create two slideshows.
>>>>
>>>> why do you have two displays? it's not needed.
>>>
>>> True. But it makes the work easier and more enjoyable.
>>
>> yes it does. that's the point.
>>
>> the problem is it's hypocritical to say that a $400 pc is sufficient
>> for most people and a mac is more expensive with features that are not
>> needed, while bragging about how wonderful having multiple displays
>> are.
>
>Not necessarily true. Considering that people have different uses and
>budgets. My wife, as is true with many other users, is perfectly happy
>with a four hundred dollar machine. I use a high end machine, (HP
>Pavilion elite, with an i7 processor and 16 gig memory,) for my image
>processing.
>While it may not have had the same specs as other machines, it suites my
>work just fine.

True, and the all of the cost is not necessarily in the hardware. A
moderately-spec'd computer may be running software that cost much more
than the computer. I have only Photoshop and Lightroom, but know
people with those programs plus Topaz, Nik, and several other
high-ticket software add-ons.

Then there's the cost of external back-up devices. I have two
external drives and have to keep culling down what is on them and/or
moving files to DVDs in order not to buy bigger external drives.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 7/7/2011 2:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:26:14 -0400, PeterN

>>
>> Not necessarily true. Considering that people have different uses and
>> budgets. My wife, as is true with many other users, is perfectly happy
>> with a four hundred dollar machine. I use a high end machine, (HP
>> Pavilion elite, with an i7 processor and 16 gig memory,) for my image
>> processing.
>> While it may not have had the same specs as other machines, it suites my
>> work just fine.
>
> True, and the all of the cost is not necessarily in the hardware. A
> moderately-spec'd computer may be running software that cost much more
> than the computer. I have only Photoshop and Lightroom, but know
> people with those programs plus Topaz, Nik, and several other
> high-ticket software add-ons.
>
> Then there's the cost of external back-up devices. I have two
> external drives and have to keep culling down what is on them and/or
> moving files to DVDs in order not to buy bigger external drives.
>


I have multiple external drives for backup totaling 6.5 TB, plus two
..5TB notebook back up drives. The cost is low, under $100 for a 2TB, and
about $100 for the notebook backups. I use the notebook backups when
traveling to download my CF cards.

--
Peter

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:02:03 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 7/7/2011 2:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:26:14 -0400, PeterN
>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily true. Considering that people have different uses and
>>> budgets. My wife, as is true with many other users, is perfectly happy
>>> with a four hundred dollar machine. I use a high end machine, (HP
>>> Pavilion elite, with an i7 processor and 16 gig memory,) for my image
>>> processing.
>>> While it may not have had the same specs as other machines, it suites my
>>> work just fine.
>>
>> True, and the all of the cost is not necessarily in the hardware. A
>> moderately-spec'd computer may be running software that cost much more
>> than the computer. I have only Photoshop and Lightroom, but know
>> people with those programs plus Topaz, Nik, and several other
>> high-ticket software add-ons.
>>
>> Then there's the cost of external back-up devices. I have two
>> external drives and have to keep culling down what is on them and/or
>> moving files to DVDs in order not to buy bigger external drives.
>>
>
>
>I have multiple external drives for backup totaling 6.5 TB, plus two
>.5TB notebook back up drives. The cost is low, under $100 for a 2TB, and
>about $100 for the notebook backups. I use the notebook backups when
>traveling to download my CF cards.

My problem is that I bought two Seagate external 150 gig drives for
just over $100 each. Right after that, the capacity of externals
started to go up but the prices remained the same. I have a little
Hitachi 250 external that's about the size of a pack of cigarettes
that use with my laptop. It was $40.

So, I take off files onto DVDs.

I can't imagine filling a TB drive, but - then - I never thought I'd
need more than 150 GBs, either.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >you haven't said why a full blown mac is necessary.
>
> Isn't it up to the buyers who spends the money for a computer with
> top-of-the-line specs to say why the purchase is necessary?

of course. now you're waffling. why even mention full blown? if someone
wants a high end mac, they'll get one. if they want a low end mac,
they'll get that instead. if they want a pc, they'll buy one of those.

> Not that they need to defend themselves. Buyers should choose to buy
> what they think is the best system for them.

and they do.

tony cooper <> wrote:

> I don't have a netbook, but several of the people who attend my camera
> club meetings do. They show each other their photos on them. They do
> display them in slideshows.

They should buy (according to J. Clarke) a single use tool,
e.g. a digital photo frame.

-Wolfgang

David J Taylor <david-> wrote:

>>> why do you have two displays? it's not needed.

>> True. But it makes the work easier and more enjoyable.

> Indeed, it was a highly productive upgrade for me.
> Strongly recommended.

And yet you seem to think that buying a 'not needed' Mac (where
you get quality, but are well over the cheap&nasty low end)
might not offer similar advantages?

-Wolfgang

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:53:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>David J Taylor <david-> wrote:
>
>>>> why do you have two displays? it's not needed.
>
>>> True. But it makes the work easier and more enjoyable.
>
>> Indeed, it was a highly productive upgrade for me.
>> Strongly recommended.
>
>And yet you seem to think that buying a 'not needed' Mac (where
>you get quality, but are well over the cheap&nasty low end)
>might not offer similar advantages?

I would assume David, like me, agrees that Macs offer advantages to
some people, but the desire for those advantages does not apply to
him.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:280720111050089645%...
[]
> have you (or david or anyone else for that matter) actually done an
> objective evaluation as to whether or not a mac would be of any
> benefit?
>
> based on what you've posted in this and other threads, the answer is a
> flat out no. instead, you fall into the usual myths that macs are more
> expensive, can't run as much software, can't interoperate with the rest
> of the world, etc. all bogus.

I don't know whether I'm the David to whom you refer, but I need a main PC
which runs Windows, and is as similar as possible to the PCs on which
others run the software I write. I also like to add hardware inside my
PCs. Macs are a more expensive solution for those tasks, and what benefit
would they offer?

For a portable PC, I also need Windows, and I have recently found that a
US $300 netbook can do pretty much all that I need. Apple seem to have
nothing remotely matching that price range, even if their stuff is a tad
smaller.

For tablet PCs, Apple do offer the best solution right now, although they
charge through the nose for their iPad (as other manufacturers still do).
I suspect that competing products will become rather lower cost as the
supply increases and the market starts to saturate.

Cheers,
David

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:50:08 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >And yet you seem to think that buying a 'not needed' Mac (where
>> >you get quality, but are well over the cheap&nasty low end)
>> >might not offer similar advantages?
>>
>> I would assume David, like me, agrees that Macs offer advantages to
>> some people, but the desire for those advantages does not apply to
>> him.
>
>have you (or david or anyone else for that matter) actually done an
>objective evaluation as to whether or not a mac would be of any
>benefit?
>
>based on what you've posted in this and other threads, the answer is a
>flat out no. instead, you fall into the usual myths that macs are more
>expensive, can't run as much software, can't interoperate with the rest
>of the world, etc. all bogus.

What I believe is that purchasing a Mac would mean more out-of-pocket
expense for me compared to what I would spend on a PC unit that meets
my needs in specs. I don't know what software limitations there are
with a Mac, but I do know that some software that I currently own
would not run on a Mac.

If I did need specs at the level that Macs provide, I would certainly
consider one. But, I don't need those specs.

This idea you have that people like me don't consider specs when we
compare prices is completely groundless. Your idea that saying
something is "more expensive" is wrong if the item has more features
is ridiculous. It is still more expensive even if it offers more
value in some ways. "More expensive" is a quantitative, not
qualitative, term.

Apple has closed one door to me by deciding that I have to pay more to
get a Mac with an optical drive for DVDs and CDs. The Mac Mini will
no longer be an option for less out-of-pocket expense for the Apple
buyer.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> What I believe is that purchasing a Mac would mean more out-of-pocket
> expense for me compared to what I would spend on a PC unit that meets
> my needs in specs. I don't know what software limitations there are
> with a Mac, but I do know that some software that I currently own
> would not run on a Mac.

wrong. all of the software you own will run on a mac and there may even
be alternatives that are better that *can't* run on windows. with a
mac, you have the widest choice of software.

> If I did need specs at the level that Macs provide, I would certainly
> consider one. But, I don't need those specs.

what specs are those?

> This idea you have that people like me don't consider specs when we
> compare prices is completely groundless. Your idea that saying
> something is "more expensive" is wrong if the item has more features
> is ridiculous. It is still more expensive even if it offers more
> value in some ways. "More expensive" is a quantitative, not
> qualitative, term.

what i said was it's more expensive because it has more features, not
because it's a mac. nobody is saying buy more features than you need.

> Apple has closed one door to me by deciding that I have to pay more to
> get a Mac with an optical drive for DVDs and CDs. The Mac Mini will
> no longer be an option for less out-of-pocket expense for the Apple
> buyer.

they didn't remove it because they felt like it, they removed it
because it's no longer important. i've never used the dvd drive in my
laptop. it's nothing but excess weight and expense. the macbook air has
never had a dvd drive and it's the best selling mac laptop.

cd/dvd drives are becoming less important with the internet, online
movie streaming, network storage and cloud backup. for those who still
need an optical drive, they can add an external for $40 (or less,
even), or buy a model that still has one.

as you say, why pay for something that is not needed? it works both
ways.