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
Similar Threads
