Re: Rich's OT Evil Apple irrational brain fart.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:54:37 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <iurt3s$k3i$>, David J Taylor
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I suppose that some folk will buy on specifications, yes, but the majority
    >> of folk I know want a PC to do a particular job, and will want to pay the
    >> minimum for that capability. They won't care what the processor is. So
    >> for them, pricing for task is the issue.

    >
    >that's true, and it turns out that $300 netbooks are not capable of
    >doing many (most) of tasks people want to do, or poorly.
    >
    >you said your netbook has a 600 pixel high display. that's going to be
    >very limiting for anything that has to do with photos other than a
    >cursory glance at them. might as well get a portable storage device for
    >that task.
    >
    >good luck trying to sort through photos and make a web page or a slide
    >show on a display that tiny.


    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.

    I'm sure, though, that all of these people also have computers at home
    that are fully capable of making a web page or slide show. If you are
    into creating web pages, it's very unlikely that you would own only a
    netbook. Netbooks are usually bought to be portable secondary
    machines.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 5, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, 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.


    which they created on their desktop computer, probably with a 20-24"
    lcd display, maybe even bigger.

    furthermore, an ipad is a much better choice for showing photos. not
    only is the display substantially better (led backlit ips panel) but
    it's more interactive with the user, easy to zoom in and pan,
    autorotate for portrait/landscape, etc.
     
    nospam, Jul 5, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:21:11 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, 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.

    >
    >which they created on their desktop computer, probably with a 20-24"
    >lcd display, maybe even bigger.


    Yeah, so? That agrees with my contention - which you snipped - that
    netbooks are secondary units owned by people who have other computers
    at home.

    You think you need a 20" screen to create a slideshow? 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.
    >
    >furthermore, an ipad is a much better choice for showing photos. not
    >only is the display substantially better (led backlit ips panel) but
    >it's more interactive with the user, easy to zoom in and pan,
    >autorotate for portrait/landscape, etc.


    Gee! Am I surprised that you said that.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 5, 2011
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Jul 5, 2011
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:33:53 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

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


    Of course the second monitor is needed. That's what you don't
    understand about the computer market. The *user* decides what the
    user needs. That's why people buy laptops that don't have bells and
    whistles they don't feel they need.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 5, 2011
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> 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.

    >
    > Of course the second monitor is needed.


    why? you said a 20" display is not needed to create a slide show, so
    why would *two* displays be needed? keep contradicting yourself, why
    don't you.

    > That's what you don't
    > understand about the computer market.


    i understand it quite a bit better than you do.

    > The *user* decides what the
    > user needs. That's why people buy laptops that don't have bells and
    > whistles they don't feel they need.


    nobody said they buy features they don't feel they need.

    nice attempt at a straw man. not gonna work.
     
    nospam, Jul 5, 2011
    #6
  7. "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:040720111621111730%...
    []
    > furthermore, an ipad is a much better choice for showing photos. not
    > only is the display substantially better (led backlit ips panel) but
    > it's more interactive with the user, easy to zoom in and pan,
    > autorotate for portrait/landscape, etc.


    Unless you want to sort the photos into your own display order. That
    capability appears to have been forgotten by Apple!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 5, 2011
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <iuu8ql$nns$>, David J Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > furthermore, an ipad is a much better choice for showing photos. not
    > > only is the display substantially better (led backlit ips panel) but
    > > it's more interactive with the user, easy to zoom in and pan,
    > > autorotate for portrait/landscape, etc.

    >
    > Unless you want to sort the photos into your own display order. That
    > capability appears to have been forgotten by Apple!


    as i said before, currently you can arrange them on the computer and
    then sync. in a couple of months with ios 5, you will be able to do it
    on the device itself.
     
    nospam, Jul 5, 2011
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<>, tony cooper
    > <> 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.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 6, 2011
    #9
  10. >> why do you have two displays? it's not needed.
    >
    > True. But it makes the work easier and more enjoyable.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


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

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 6, 2011
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    deeanabrown33

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    So that is a bit about me!

    That's exciting - keep us updated, hope everything goes smoothly!
    [​IMG]
     
    deeanabrown33, Jul 6, 2011
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <4e13b184$0$12482$-secrets.com>, 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.
     
    nospam, Jul 7, 2011
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:05:51 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <4e13b184$0$12482$-secrets.com>, 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.


    What's hypocritical about it?

    First of all, no one said a $400 machine is sufficient for most
    people. The statement was that a $400 machine is sufficient for
    *some* people. You don't have to be a word maven to understand the
    difference between "most" and "some".

    Secondly, no one said that Macs with more features are not needed.
    The statement was that Macs with more features are not need by *most*
    buyers.

    Third, neither statement addresses the middle group: those who want
    more than a $400 machine and less than a full-blown Mac. A second
    monitor is a feature that the middle group can feel is worthwhile to
    add while still not needing all of the features of the full-blown Mac.

    That's where I am.

    The second monitor is used with my desktop, not a laptop. The $400
    figure was for laptops.











    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 7, 2011
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >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.

    >
    > What's hypocritical about it?


    everything.

    > First of all, no one said a $400 machine is sufficient for most
    > people. The statement was that a $400 machine is sufficient for
    > *some* people. You don't have to be a word maven to understand the
    > difference between "most" and "some".


    semantics. substitute 'some' if you prefer. the actual number is not
    really relevant.

    > Secondly, no one said that Macs with more features are not needed.
    > The statement was that Macs with more features are not need by *most*
    > buyers.


    first it's some, then it's most. make up your mind.

    > Third, neither statement addresses the middle group: those who want
    > more than a $400 machine and less than a full-blown Mac. A second
    > monitor is a feature that the middle group can feel is worthwhile to
    > add while still not needing all of the features of the full-blown Mac.


    straw man. nobody said they had to get a 'full blown mac' (whatever
    that even means).

    > That's where I am.
    >
    > The second monitor is used with my desktop, not a laptop. The $400
    > figure was for laptops.


    laptops are the new desktops.

    people are going mobile and buying laptops as their main machine rather
    than have both a laptop & desktop and have to deal with keeping
    everything in sync (and paying for more than one computer too). attach
    a second display when needed.
     
    nospam, Jul 7, 2011
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:51:57 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

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

    >>
    >> What's hypocritical about it?

    >
    >everything.


    Don't strain yourself by actually explaining why you have the position
    you do. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "hypocritical".
    >
    >> First of all, no one said a $400 machine is sufficient for most
    >> people. The statement was that a $400 machine is sufficient for
    >> *some* people. You don't have to be a word maven to understand the
    >> difference between "most" and "some".

    >
    >semantics. substitute 'some' if you prefer. the actual number is not
    >really relevant.


    Semantics, hunh? The difference between "most" and "some" doesn't
    register with you? You don't see a difference between "Some people
    are red-headed" and "Most people are red-headed"?

    The actual number doesn't matter? So you wouldn't quibble if I said
    that only 6 people in the US prefer Macs to PCs since the actual
    number isn't relevant? This discussion doesn't touch on quantitative
    statements?

    >> Secondly, no one said that Macs with more features are not needed.
    >> The statement was that Macs with more features are not need by *most*
    >> buyers.

    >
    >first it's some, then it's most. make up your mind.


    There's no conflict. You see the "not" there?

    >> Third, neither statement addresses the middle group: those who want
    >> more than a $400 machine and less than a full-blown Mac. A second
    >> monitor is a feature that the middle group can feel is worthwhile to
    >> add while still not needing all of the features of the full-blown Mac.

    >
    >straw man. nobody said they had to get a 'full blown mac' (whatever
    >that even means).


    A full-blown Mac is a computer with specs in the upper range of what
    is available in features. You can't figure that out on your own?

    You can't figure out what "a full-blown Mac" means, but you are
    absolutely sure that no one has said there's a need to get one.

    >> That's where I am.
    >>
    >> The second monitor is used with my desktop, not a laptop. The $400
    >> figure was for laptops.

    >
    >laptops are the new desktops.
    >
    >people are going mobile and buying laptops as their main machine rather
    >than have both a laptop & desktop and have to deal with keeping
    >everything in sync (and paying for more than one computer too). attach
    >a second display when needed.


    Do you actually know what the term "strawman" means? It's when
    someone refutes the other person's argument by introducing an
    unequivelent statement and then addresses that instead of the original
    position.

    If you manage to process the actual definition you will see that I
    have not introduced a strawman where you said I did, but that you
    *have* introduced one in your last paragraph.

    Bringing up what other people are doing in trends is a strawman. It
    has nothing to do with my position that I use the second monitor on my
    desktop. I has nothing to do with the middle group of computer owners
    who add features to an existing machine.

    Really, you are sounding more and more churlish and childish as this
    goes on.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 7, 2011
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> Third, neither statement addresses the middle group: those who want
    > >> more than a $400 machine and less than a full-blown Mac. A second
    > >> monitor is a feature that the middle group can feel is worthwhile to
    > >> add while still not needing all of the features of the full-blown Mac.

    > >
    > >straw man. nobody said they had to get a 'full blown mac' (whatever
    > >that even means).

    >
    > A full-blown Mac is a computer with specs in the upper range of what
    > is available in features. You can't figure that out on your own?
    >
    > You can't figure out what "a full-blown Mac" means, but you are
    > absolutely sure that no one has said there's a need to get one.


    you haven't said why a full blown mac is necessary.

    it's nothing more than a lame attempt to suggest that one must spend
    oodles of money for a high end mac to portray them as expensive, as
    opposed to a $400 laptop or whatever unspecified desktop you have.

    even the cheapest mac supports multiple displays.

    > >> That's where I am.
    > >>
    > >> The second monitor is used with my desktop, not a laptop. The $400
    > >> figure was for laptops.

    > >
    > >laptops are the new desktops.
    > >
    > >people are going mobile and buying laptops as their main machine rather
    > >than have both a laptop & desktop and have to deal with keeping
    > >everything in sync (and paying for more than one computer too). attach
    > >a second display when needed.

    >
    > Do you actually know what the term "strawman" means? It's when
    > someone refutes the other person's argument by introducing an
    > unequivelent statement and then addresses that instead of the original
    > position.
    >
    > If you manage to process the actual definition you will see that I
    > have not introduced a strawman where you said I did, but that you
    > *have* introduced one in your last paragraph.


    you're the one who brought up full blown macs.

    > Bringing up what other people are doing in trends is a strawman.
    > It has nothing to do with my position that I use the second monitor on my
    > desktop. I has nothing to do with the middle group of computer owners
    > who add features to an existing machine.


    not at all. you said the second monitor is used with your desktop, not
    a laptop, somehow exempting your $400 laptop from needing this feature.

    it turns out that people are buying laptops as their main machine, so
    for those who want dual displays (not everyone does), having that
    ability in a laptop is vital because they don't *have* a desktop
    computer (or if they do, it's for mundane tasks like a media server).
     
    nospam, Jul 7, 2011
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:19:42 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> Third, neither statement addresses the middle group: those who want
    >> >> more than a $400 machine and less than a full-blown Mac. A second
    >> >> monitor is a feature that the middle group can feel is worthwhile to
    >> >> add while still not needing all of the features of the full-blown Mac.
    >> >
    >> >straw man. nobody said they had to get a 'full blown mac' (whatever
    >> >that even means).

    >>
    >> A full-blown Mac is a computer with specs in the upper range of what
    >> is available in features. You can't figure that out on your own?
    >>
    >> You can't figure out what "a full-blown Mac" means, but you are
    >> absolutely sure that no one has said there's a need to get one.

    >
    >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?

    Not that they need to defend themselves. Buyers should choose to buy
    what they think is the best system for them.
    >
    >it's nothing more than a lame attempt to suggest that one must spend
    >oodles of money for a high end mac to portray them as expensive, as
    >opposed to a $400 laptop or whatever unspecified desktop you have.
    >
    >even the cheapest mac supports multiple displays.


    What has that to do with anything? The ability to use a second
    display has to do with the presence of a graphics card that supports
    multiple displays. Graphics cards can be added.

    >> >> That's where I am.
    >> >>
    >> >> The second monitor is used with my desktop, not a laptop. The $400
    >> >> figure was for laptops.
    >> >
    >> >laptops are the new desktops.
    >> >
    >> >people are going mobile and buying laptops as their main machine rather
    >> >than have both a laptop & desktop and have to deal with keeping
    >> >everything in sync (and paying for more than one computer too). attach
    >> >a second display when needed.

    >>
    >> Do you actually know what the term "strawman" means? It's when
    >> someone refutes the other person's argument by introducing an
    >> unequivelent statement and then addresses that instead of the original
    >> position.
    >>
    >> If you manage to process the actual definition you will see that I
    >> have not introduced a strawman where you said I did, but that you
    >> *have* introduced one in your last paragraph.

    >
    >you're the one who brought up full blown macs.


    No, I merely described what you have brought up - specs - using the
    term "full-blown". Full-blown is not a pejorative term. It was just
    used to describe a machine that has a lot of features and
    functionality. Once again, you are taking exception to a point not
    made.

    >> Bringing up what other people are doing in trends is a strawman.
    >> It has nothing to do with my position that I use the second monitor on my
    >> desktop. I has nothing to do with the middle group of computer owners
    >> who add features to an existing machine.

    >
    >not at all. you said the second monitor is used with your desktop, not
    >a laptop, somehow exempting your $400 laptop from needing this feature.


    >it turns out that people are buying laptops as their main machine, so
    >for those who want dual displays (not everyone does), having that
    >ability in a laptop is vital because they don't *have* a desktop
    >computer (or if they do, it's for mundane tasks like a media server).


    Any laptop where the proper graphics card is in place or can be added
    can support a second monitor.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 7, 2011
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    ASCII Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > using the
    >term "full-blown"


    With regards to the commonly used reference to 'AIDS"
    is "full blown" the stage of the disease, or the vector?
     
    ASCII, Jul 7, 2011
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:06:05 -0700, ASCII <> wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> using the
    >>term "full-blown"

    >
    >With regards to the commonly used reference to 'AIDS"
    >is "full blown" the stage of the disease, or the vector?


    Watch it. nospam will be on your case and telling you that there is
    no disease called "AIDS". AIDS is a syndrome and a stage of a
    disease. (acquired immune deficiency syndrome)

    AIDS is the final stage of HIV disease.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 7, 2011
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/6/2011 8:05 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<4e13b184$0$12482$-secrets.com>, 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.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 7, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    961
  2. Aido

    A bit of a Brain Fart.

    Aido, Dec 26, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    363
  3. Damian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    433
    Damian
    Sep 12, 2006
  4. Damian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
    Damian
    Sep 12, 2006
  5. Richard

    Re: Apple: An Evil Empire in the Making?

    Richard, Apr 15, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    359
    Roger_Nickel
    Apr 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page