«

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

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> 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?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, Dudley
Hanks <> 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.

On 26/08/2012 20:28, tony cooper 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?
>
> 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

On 27/08/2012 05:08, Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

Actually you can. Look up Hackintosh.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article <>, tony cooper
<> 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?

In article <>, Dudley
Hanks <> 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.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> 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.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > 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.

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.

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

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:48:27 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> 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.

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