Re: What makes a mac better?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    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?
    >
    > 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."
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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).
    >
    > 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...
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
    best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.
     
    ray, Aug 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
    > best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.


    what's unsurpassed about linux is the lack of useful software.
     
    nospam, Aug 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Dudley
    Hanks <> wrote:

    > Now for some legal bullshit. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group
    > . From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
    > unix is, they would agree with me that it's a description of the function of
    > a family of operating systems, but they would also add ``that we have
    > certified to be UNIX''. So legally, it's not a UNIX unless The Open Group
    > certifies it as a UNIX. So a lot of those operating systems I listed as
    > unices are not UNIXes. It's a thoroughly sad case of legalities getting in
    > the way of simplicity & sanity.


    it's legally unix.

    <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm>
    <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm>
    <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3591.htm>
     
    nospam, Aug 26, 2012
    #3
  4. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is abysmal.


    true.

    > Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
    > Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure than any
    > standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).


    false. unix is more secure than windows.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #4
  5. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > It is no offshoot.
    > > It is UNIX.
    > > BSD based.
    > > POSIX Compliant.
    > > UNIX 03 certified.
    > >
    > > You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
    > > the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
    > > separately installed).

    >
    > Legally it's not UNIX because of some trademark issues.


    legally it's unix.

    > In any case, there's nothing ideal about UNIX, especially on the desktop.


    plain unix by itself is a very poor choice for the desktop.

    however, mac os x is a *lot* more than plain unix.

    > And UNIX is buried so deeply beneath proprietary code on Macs


    nonsense. launch terminal and have at it, do whatever command line
    stuff you want. it's all there.

    > that it really
    > can't be referred to as UNIX, anyway.


    it can and it is.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #5
  6. ray

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:52:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > ray writes:
    >
    >> IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
    >> best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

    >
    > There's no such thing as Linux. There are only endless different systems
    > based on a Linux kernel.


    OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?

    >
    > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
    > abysmal.


    Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
    anything else - for any given need there are generally several
    applications to choose from. It is true that there are not many
    commercial applications.

    >
    > Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
    > Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure
    > than any standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).


    I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it was
    unsurpassed - which is true. MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly,
    trails in that area.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #6
  7. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > On 2012.08.26 11:51 , ray 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?
    >>>
    >>> 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."
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of
    >>> info.
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> 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).
    >>>
    >>> 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...
    >>>
    >>> Take Care,
    >>> Dudley

    >>
    >> IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
    >> best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

    >
    > Linux has been the NEXT THING since about 2000 - at that point in time
    > it had "arrived" as a desktop environment for the masses. It was going
    > to replace Windows outright and possibly turn off Apple's lights.


    Funny, I don't recall saying that. The point is that MS has a virtual
    monopoly on reasonably priced, readily available systems.

    >
    > Sure Wilbur.
    >
    > As a home/office desktop environment it absolutely sucks. And that is
    > why only geeks use it for such.


    B.S. It works fine for home systems and office systems as well. There is
    precious little it does not do as well. However, the OP was NOT about
    home/office use.

    >
    > For fucks sake it is FREE! ... and only has a couple percent of the
    > desktop market. If something is so ridiculously good and free, everone
    > should be using it. (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter - all very
    > good to their users and free and immensely popular [no I don't use
    > facebook or Twitter])
    >
    > Yet people pay MS' ridiculous premium prices for MS Windows (and pay for
    > malware protection too) and eschew Linux.


    Primarily because they have little choice in the matter - visit your
    local Staples or OfficeMax and ask to see a Linux computer!


    >
    > It has utterly failed to take on the home/office after a 10+ years
    > assault.


    Again, OP did not inquire about use for home/office, though we've been
    using it exclusively for both for about 10 years.

    >
    > 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!

    >
    > Mountain Lion (upgrade) is $20. And that one (downloaded update)
    > payment applies to ALL the Macs in a house. Got 15 intel Macs? Fine
    > load 'em all up. And there are no idiotic feature levels like Windows
    > (except the OS X server, an additional $20).
    >
    > Linux is for industrial, embedded, databases, super-computing and so on.
    > It is horrid as a desktop home/office machine. Yes I've been there.
    > Useless.


    No it is not 'horrid' as a desktop home/office machine - though, once
    more - THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OP ASKED ABOUT.

    >
    > Your "stability and security unsurpassed" claim is specious too. Indeed
    > with the encrypted volume scheme on a Mac the hard disk is effectively
    > scrambled at all times that the key is not loaded. That's secure. As
    > to malware prevention Linux's sole advantage is that it is not targetted
    > as much as Windows.


    So, tell me how it IS surpassed.

    >
    > Linux (like OS X) depends on the user to keep the barbarians out of the
    > gate. A well written attack with a dash of social engineering will get
    > malware in there. But I guess malware writers consider Linux to be too
    > lean, too savvy and especially too poor to bother attacking.


    You have your opinions, which you have voiced (few 'facts' included and
    many of those are wrong) - and I have mine.

    It is rather specious to talk about what is 'best' in the first place.
    What is 'best' for one person is not necessarily 'best' for anyone else.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #7
  8. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Aug 27, 11:25 am, ray <> 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.

    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
     
    -hh, Aug 27, 2012
    #8
  9. ray

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:17:14 -0700, -hh wrote:

    > On Aug 27, 11:25 am, ray <> 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.

    >
    > 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. 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.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #9
  10. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
    > > abysmal.

    >
    > Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
    > anything else - for any given need there are generally several
    > applications to choose from.


    nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.

    macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
    ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
    software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the
    most of any platform.

    > It is true that there are not many
    > commercial applications.


    exactly. so it's *less*.

    > > Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS) or
    > > Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more secure
    > > than any standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).

    >
    > I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it was
    > unsurpassed - which is true. MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly,
    > trails in that area.


    true.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #10
  11. ray

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700, nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, ray <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
    >> > abysmal.

    >>
    >> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
    >> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
    >> applications to choose from.

    >
    > nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.
    >
    > macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
    > ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
    > software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the most
    > of any platform.


    Using a virtual machine, you can run all three on all three, so your
    point is pointless.

    >
    >> It is true that there are not many
    >> commercial applications.

    >
    > exactly. so it's *less*.


    That is nonsense. There are more non-commercial applications in the world
    than commercial ones.


    >
    >> > Security is no better than the Mac (which also runs a UNIX clone OS)
    >> > or Windows (which runs a Windows NT code base, which is much more
    >> > secure than any standard variety of UNIX or UNIX clone).

    >>
    >> I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it
    >> was unsurpassed - which is true. MAC security is roughly as good - MS,
    >> sadly, trails in that area.

    >
    > true.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #11
  12. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Aug 27, 2:08 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:17:14 -0700, -hh wrote:
    > > On Aug 27, 11:25 am, ray <> 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
     
    -hh, Aug 27, 2012
    #12
  13. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Aug 27, 3:11 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700, nospam wrote:
    > > In article <>, ray <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
    > >> > abysmal.

    >
    > >> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
    > >> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
    > >> applications to choose from.

    >
    > > nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.

    >
    > > macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
    > > ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
    > > software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the most
    > > of any platform.

    >
    > Using a virtual machine, you can run all three on all three, so your
    > point is pointless.


    Technically true.

    But Legally...not true.

    The legal catch is that the EULA for OS X requires Apple hardware.


    > >> It is true that there are not many
    > >> commercial applications.

    >
    > > exactly. so it's *less*.

    >
    > That is nonsense. There are more non-commercial applications in the world
    > than commercial ones.


    Non sequetor; this is simple "Set Theory" mathmatics:

    Linux/Unix OS - subset A
    Windows OS - subset B
    Mac OS - subset C

    A PC that can run (legally) Linux & Windows --> Set of (A + B)
    A Mac that can run (legally) Linux, Windows & OS X --> Set of (A + B +
    C).

    Quite obviously,

    (A + B + C) > (A + B)


    ....regardless of what happens to be contained within A, or B, or C.

    -hh
     
    -hh, Aug 27, 2012
    #13
  14. ray

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:25:06 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > ray writes:
    >
    >> Actually, I've seen instances where software runs FASTER under WINE on
    >> Linux than on MS.

    >
    > Sure you have. Show me the benchmark.
    >
    > All else being equal, nothing ever runs faster in emulation.


    Amen. But WINE is not an emulator. It is an application interface - big
    difference.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #14
  15. ray

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:23:23 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > ray writes:
    >
    >> B.S. It works fine for home systems and office systems as well. There
    >> is precious little it does not do as well. However, the OP was NOT
    >> about home/office use.

    >
    > Linux is useless on the desktop, and there is no indication that this
    > will change in the foreseeable future.
    >
    >> Primarily because they have little choice in the matter - visit your
    >> local Staples or OfficeMax and ask to see a Linux computer!

    >
    > No, they would buy Windows anyway, because it's easier to use than Linux
    > and supports about a million more applications.
    >
    > Windows is a good compromise between the walled garden of the Mac and
    > the anarchy of Linux.
    >
    >> Not much the average person needs to do that can't be done with the
    >> Linux equivalents.

    >
    > Sometimes equivalents are not enough. Windows is the safe bet for the
    > average user, unless he wants to spring for a Mac. Linux is not even on
    > the radar.
    >
    >> It is rather specious to talk about what is 'best' in the first place.
    >> What is 'best' for one person is not necessarily 'best' for anyone
    >> else.

    >
    > Windows is best on the desktop for 90-95% of users. The rest may be
    > better off with a Mac. The only people who might like Linux are those
    > who prefer to tinker with computers for the sake of doing so, rather
    > than actually do productive work.


    I love it when people tell me I can't do what I'm doing!
    I've been doing productive work on *nix systems for about 20 years now.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #15
  16. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > >> > And unfortunately, the number of applications available for Linux is
    > >> > abysmal.
    > >>
    > >> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
    > >> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
    > >> applications to choose from.

    > >
    > > nonsense. linux has the smallest choice in software.
    > >
    > > macs can run almost all linux software, most of which has already been
    > > ported, *and* all mac software, and if you install vmware, all windows
    > > software, all side by side and sharing data. that makes it have the most
    > > of any platform.

    >
    > Using a virtual machine, you can run all three on all three, so your
    > point is pointless.


    with the associated hassles, limitations and overhead.

    virtual machines are great for a lot of things but i'd not want to run
    all of my apps in a vm all the time, especially the memory intensive
    ones.

    meanwhile, a mac runs mac and linux apps natively, with only windows
    apps needing a virtual machine.

    > >> It is true that there are not many
    > >> commercial applications.

    > >
    > > exactly. so it's *less*.

    >
    > That is nonsense. There are more non-commercial applications in the world
    > than commercial ones.


    i don't know if that's true (and i doubt you do either), but what
    you're missing is that it's not either/or. it's a *union* of both, and
    without any need of a virtual machine.

    not only is it more in number, but the commercial apps are generally
    better quality since they are usually much more capable and polished,
    e.g., photoshop, lightroom & final cut pro. in other words, users are
    more productive.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #16
  17. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > nonsense. launch terminal and have at it, do whatever command line
    > > stuff you want. it's all there.

    >
    > Nobody buys a Mac to run UNIX.


    then it doesn't matter if unix is buried, as you previously claimed.
    try to keep your story straight.

    and actually, many do buy a mac to run unix, since they get unix and
    open source software *plus* quality commercial software. a lot of new
    mac users were ex-linux users.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #17
  18. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > Windows is a good compromise between the walled garden of the Mac and the
    > anarchy of Linux.


    macs are not a walled garden. you can run anything you want on them,
    including just about all unix software. write your own software if you
    want.

    > Windows is best on the desktop for 90-95% of users. The rest may be better off
    > with a Mac. The only people who might like Linux are those who prefer to
    > tinker with computers for the sake of doing so, rather than actually do
    > productive work.


    that part is true.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #18
  19. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Actually, I've seen instances where software runs FASTER under WINE on
    > > Linux than on MS.

    >
    > Sure you have. Show me the benchmark.


    yea, let's see the benchmark.

    there might be a rare instance where it is slightly faster, but just
    about all apps will be similar in performance, if they work at all
    under wine, that is. not all do. in fact, many do not. that's why linux
    users are frequently rebooting into windows or using a windows vm.

    > All else being equal, nothing ever runs faster in emulation.


    wine isn't an emulator.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #19
  20. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > false. unix is more secure than windows.

    >
    > I've looked at the source code for both.


    where did you get the source code to windows?

    and *which* unix did you look at, assuming you actually did?

    > Windows is way, way ahead.


    what colour is the sky on your planet?

    > It still
    > has security features that have not been exposed in the user interface, mainly
    > because users would be overwhelmed.


    specifics?
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #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. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  2. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  3. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    324
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  4. tony cooper

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    1,256
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 31, 2012
  5. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    285
    nospam
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page