«

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:47:48 -0400, Michael wrote:

> On 2012-10-08 20:46:50 +0000, ray said:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:18:34 -0600, Wally wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:48:22 -0400, nospam <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <>, Wally
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am retiring the old ThinkPad and looking for a replacement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new PC laptop should be fast enough to run Lightroom v4. And the
>>>>> display should be suitable for photography -- wide screen NOT
>>>>> preferred but may be OK as long as it has approx 1050 pixels or more
>>>>> vertically. (The old display was 1400x1050).
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be nice if the new computer was not too heavy, not too
>>>>> expensive, decent battery life, big HD, etc... but the most
>>>>> important requirements seems to me are speed for the software, and
>>>>> the display.
>>>>
>>>> for the best display, it's the macbook pro with retina display. the
>>>> pixel density is higher than what your eye can resolve, so you won't
>>>> be able to see any jaggies, at all.
>>>>
>>>> for less money, there's the normal macbook pro, and for less weight,
>>>> the macbook air.
>>>>
>>>> lightroom will run extremely well on any of them.
>>>>
>>>> battery life can be as much as 10 hours on a single charge, depending
>>>> on which model and what you do. hard drive is however big you want.
>>>> you can always swap in a larger drive later.
>>>>
>>>> i'd also wait a week or so, as there are rumours of some new models
>>>> coming soon.
>>>
>>> That's the second recommendation for the Retina.
>>>
>>> I thought you had to have religion to buy a Mac.
>>>
>>> But I have to admit the display looks amazing. It's expensive but not
>>> totally out of reach.
>>>
>>> Browsing a bit on the web reveals there are Retina issues with
>>> software support and some other things. Will keep an eye on this...
>>>
>>> Wally
>>
>> A knowledgeable tech should be able to install MS on it for you if
>> that's what you really want.
>
> You don't need a knowledgeable tech or any tech at all. All Macs can run
> Windows. Just buy the Windows of your choice and follow the instructions
> to use Bootcamp. That requires you reboot the computer whenever you
> change from Mac OS to Windows. If you want less hassle, buy Parallels or
> similar. It's not a "simulation" the way older Macs ran Windows. Macs
> use the same Intel processors that Windows boxes use, and run it
> natively. You just have to pay extra for it and install it according to
> instructions. I use Windows XP on my iMac when I have to link to my
> office, whose software is proprietary and runs only on Windows, so I
> have about a 10 gig partition for that, set it up under Bootcamp, and
> just restart in Windows whenever I need to use it.

Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on the
MAC computer. Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.

In article <>, ray <>
wrote:

> >> A knowledgeable tech should be able to install MS on it for you if
> >> that's what you really want.
> >
> > You don't need a knowledgeable tech or any tech at all. All Macs can run
> > Windows. Just buy the Windows of your choice and follow the instructions
> > to use Bootcamp. That requires you reboot the computer whenever you
> > change from Mac OS to Windows. If you want less hassle, buy Parallels or
> > similar. It's not a "simulation" the way older Macs ran Windows. Macs
> > use the same Intel processors that Windows boxes use, and run it
> > natively. You just have to pay extra for it and install it according to
> > instructions. I use Windows XP on my iMac when I have to link to my
> > office, whose software is proprietary and runs only on Windows, so I
> > have about a 10 gig partition for that, set it up under Bootcamp, and
> > just restart in Windows whenever I need to use it.
>
> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on the
> MAC computer.

why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.

your loss.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:40:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <>, ray <>
> wrote:
>
>> >> A knowledgeable tech should be able to install MS on it for you if
>> >> that's what you really want.
>> >
>> > You don't need a knowledgeable tech or any tech at all. All Macs can
>> > run Windows. Just buy the Windows of your choice and follow the
>> > instructions to use Bootcamp. That requires you reboot the computer
>> > whenever you change from Mac OS to Windows. If you want less hassle,
>> > buy Parallels or similar. It's not a "simulation" the way older Macs
>> > ran Windows. Macs use the same Intel processors that Windows boxes
>> > use, and run it natively. You just have to pay extra for it and
>> > install it according to instructions. I use Windows XP on my iMac
>> > when I have to link to my office, whose software is proprietary and
>> > runs only on Windows, so I have about a 10 gig partition for that,
>> > set it up under Bootcamp, and just restart in Windows whenever I need
>> > to use it.
>>
>> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on
>> the MAC computer.
>
> why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular) is
reputed to be 'the best'.

>
>> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.
>
> your loss.

No, my gain.

In article <>, ray <>
wrote:

> >> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on
> >> the MAC computer.
> >
> > why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?
>
> In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular) is
> reputed to be 'the best'.

windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

> >> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.
> >
> > your loss.
>
> No, my gain.

there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:18:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <>, ray <>
> wrote:
>
>> >> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
>> >> on the MAC computer.
>> >
>> > why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?
>>
>> In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
>> is reputed to be 'the best'.
>
> windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
> buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

Again, I'm only making the point that you're not locked into the OS that
comes with the machine - I don't understand why you have such a problem
with that.

>
>> >> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.
>> >
>> > your loss.
>>
>> No, my gain.
>
> there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

There is a lot to gain when the software I have available for free does
all that I need.

In article <>, ray <>
wrote:

> >> >> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
> >> >> on the MAC computer.
> >> >
> >> > why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?
> >>
> >> In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
> >> is reputed to be 'the best'.
> >
> > windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
> > buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.
>
> Again, I'm only making the point that you're not locked into the OS that
> comes with the machine - I don't understand why you have such a problem
> with that.

nobody said anyone was locked into the os that came with the machine.

the main reason someone buys a mac is to use os x, not to install
windows or linux, but they might install either or both *in addition*
to os x.

you seem to have a problem that people buy a mac and want to use os x.

> >> >> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.
> >> >
> >> > your loss.
> >>
> >> No, my gain.
> >
> > there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.
>
> There is a lot to gain when the software I have available for free does
> all that I need.

then you have simple needs.

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:18:37 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, ray <>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on
>
> > >> the MAC computer.
>
> > >
>
> > > why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?
>
> >
>
> > In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular) is
>
> > reputed to be 'the best'.
>
>
>
> windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
>
> buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

I'd agree with that,


>
>
>
> > >> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.
>
> > >
>
> > > your loss.
>
> >
>
> > No, my gain.
>
>
>
> there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

Agreed again, and on Macs you can run Mac OS X, windows and linux you can even have windows and Mac OS X running at the same time using the same processor.
With a PC you can't, with a PC you can't run Mac OS X only linux and windows.

For me that makes Macs a better choice for those that might want to, whereas my brother only wants to run a tiger woods golf gamne so I'm advising him to buy almost any PC.

On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Wally wrote:
> Am retiring the old ThinkPad and looking for a replacement.
>
>
>
> The new PC laptop should be fast enough to run Lightroom v4. And the
>
> display should be suitable for photography -- wide screen NOT
>
> preferred but may be OK as long as it has approx 1050 pixels or more
>
> vertically. (The old display was 1400x1050).
>
>
>
> It would be nice if the new computer was not too heavy, not too
>
> expensive, decent battery life, big HD, etc... but the most important
>
> requirements seems to me are speed for the software, and the display.
>
>
>
> Wally

Get one with a SSD, upgrade the HDD to an SSD or have a secondary SSD drive. And check the SSD speed is fast, around 400 MB/s.

ATM I am looking at replacing my HDD with an SSD and keeping the bulk of data on a NAS HDD.


DanP

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:31:13 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Wally wrote:
>
> > Am retiring the old ThinkPad and looking for a replacement.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The new PC laptop should be fast enough to run Lightroom v4. And the
>
> >
>
> > display should be suitable for photography -- wide screen NOT
>
> >
>
> > preferred but may be OK as long as it has approx 1050 pixels or more
>
> >
>
> > vertically. (The old display was 1400x1050).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It would be nice if the new computer was not too heavy, not too
>
> >
>
> > expensive, decent battery life, big HD, etc... but the most important
>
> >
>
> > requirements seems to me are speed for the software, and the display.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Wally
>
>
>
> Get one with a SSD, upgrade the HDD to an SSD or have a secondary SSD drive. And check the SSD speed is fast, around 400 MB/s.

well personally I still think they are too expensive if you have to buy another HDD due to lack of capacity just aren't worth it unless the time you save starting up is that important. Beware of teh cheap SSD they aren't muchfaster and won't save much on power either.


>
>
>
> ATM I am looking at replacing my HDD with an SSD and keeping the bulk of data on a NAS HDD.

Nice idea I hopew your NAS drive is backed up too.

>
>
>
>
>
> DanP

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:24:27 -0700, Whisky-dave wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:18:37 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, ray <>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
>> > >> on
>>
>> > >> the MAC computer.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
>> > is
>>
>> > reputed to be 'the best'.
>>
>>
>>
>> windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
>>
>> buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.
>
> I'd agree with that,
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > >> Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > your loss.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > No, my gain.
>>
>>
>>
>> there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.
>
> Agreed again, and on Macs you can run Mac OS X, windows and linux you
> can even have windows and Mac OS X running at the same time using the
> same processor. With a PC you can't, with a PC you can't run Mac OS X
> only linux and windows.

I'll be sure to tell that to my friend who DOES that (run MAC OS/X on an
MS machine).

>
> For me that makes Macs a better choice for those that might want to,
> whereas my brother only wants to run a tiger woods golf gamne so I'm
> advising him to buy almost any PC.

If 'more restrictive' licensing is your criteria, then I guess that fits.