«

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:43:57 PM UTC+1, 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?

Could it be because they don't want to admit buying the wrong product ?

>
>
>
> 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."

Intuative design perhaps it's the Apple way is the key point.

Its a difficult thing to describe until you use a Mac.
I use a PC at work a Mac at home, there's no way I'd buy a PC for home use.

I find Macs more relible, my 2 1/2 year old imac has not yet needed it's OSreinstalled, the only thing that has crashed it is unitly player while playign a ganme on line in firefox, I need to reboot by actually switching offat the back, the 1st and only time since I've had it, it then restarted without any problem.
On my Mac I can run windows if I want to, I can't run Mac OS X on my PC even if I wanted too.
I've yet to worry about viruses like we do with PC's.



>
> 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.

yes and a photo is a photo it's just a range of colours on a background.

>
>
>
> The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.

But how effectively does it do this.
Can I drag the window to a second monitor without having to re-size the window.
My PC at work I can always here, whereas at home I have 2 macs runnign andpeople can sleep in the same room.
My Mac looks good too, no stickers or LED fans or anything distracting it looks more like a work of art than a packing crete, maybe that;'s not important.



> 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.

But how well does it do those jobs.

>
>
>
> 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).

And all a car does is get you from A to B nothing else matters so why do people spend so much money on cars fro 100s to 100,000s or more ?

>
>
>
> 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...

Maybe it takes more effort to work in windows, I wasn't aware that adobe put more work into the windows version anyway.

The only people that I know that prefer windows are those that havent; useda Mac, another has just converted from Windows to Mac for music productionand is amazed just how 'trouble free' the Mac is compared to her PC she's been using.

I hear a similar argument regarding tablets, the Mac nbeing over priced, but all teh cheaper andriod type just aren;t very good, try using one, the apps tend to crash, scrolling isn't anywhere near as responsive it dies just work.

Noit sure how else to describe such thingts.


>
>
>
> Take Care,
>
> Dudley