Re: What makes a mac better?

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

  1. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > ray writes:


    >> Amen. But WINE is not an emulator. It is an application interface - big
    >> difference.


    > It's more code than Windows by itself.


    More code doesn't imply slower.

    Slower code paths imply slower. Slower code paths in complex
    programs usually result in *less* code.

    Optimisations very often means more cases, more code paths, paring
    down the often used logic paths to the fastest possible code paths.
    So a lot of special cases --- which can be slower without great
    impact, as they are rarely run --- need other code paths, which
    means more code.

    But you don't understand that, as the other way to have more
    code is bloat (like in windows) and THAT means slower.


    BTW, how much code *is* Windows? Less than 45 MB for everything?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. -hh <> wrote:
    > 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:


    > 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.


    That being said, Windows can also multitask ... it can crash
    while booting. :)


    > 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.


    Only so far as the computer is slowing down the user.
    (Example: typing a text. The computer does nothing but wait for
    the user. Waiting faster doesn't speed up the user or the task.)

    There is also the possibility of using faster software.
    (E.g. better (faster) algorithms or software that uses the GPU
    for calculations.)


    > In this regards, Apple's "Time Machine" portion of OS X is brain-dead-
    > simple to use and quite effective.


    Yep, that thing is a VERY good idea and has a very simple and
    effective interface. Apple's to be congratulated on that!


    > 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.


    Ah, but the camera is something you take along or not, easily
    changing the decision every time you leave the house, but a backup
    system is something you install once and then keep on the machine.


    > 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.


    Uh, I wouldn't base my OS decision on a backup tool, especially as
    there are a multitude of backup tools available. Buildin backup
    should be only *one* out of many points.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson writes:


    >> Linux (Unix) systems have another clear advantage over
    >> either Windows or Mac, because the others go to extreme
    >> efforts to hid everything from the user, and therefore
    >> almost all that can be done by most users is what the
    >> original designers/programmers choose to make available.


    > That's all the average user wants to do. Anything beyond that is a source of
    > frustration.


    Choice is BAD. Everyone should only use a compact camera ---
    and there should be only 3 of them: a phone camera, a 16 MPix
    3x zoomable compact camera and a 20x superzoom camera.
    That's all the average user wants --- anything beyond that is
    a source of frustration.

    DSLRs? MF cameras? Changeable lenses? RAW format? Image
    editors? Frustration, I tell you.

    >> Linux systems still follow the original UNIX in concept,
    >> and provide a *toolbox* to the user.


    > Linux isn't a descendant of UNIX. It's a clone.


    Prove that. (It's not.)

    > And the only reason it has
    > become widespread is that it's free,


    Free as in speech, to be exact. It's under the GPL.

    And that it is developed by very many, very good, very passionate
    people. (Which is because it's under the GPL.)

    And because it's very easy to improve --- you don't have to wait
    months or years for a vendor to move, if they move at all ---
    you can hire a developer or do it yourself. (Which is because
    it's under the GPL.) Oh, and sharing your changes is legal, too.
    (Which is because it's under the GPL.)

    And because you get lots and lots and lots of software bundled.
    (Because that software's also under the GPL.)

    And lots of eyes mean that bugs are shallow. Lots of eyes
    are only possible when the sourcecode is widely available.
    (Which is because it's under the GPL.)

    Oh, and a couple other good things that happen because it's
    free as in speech.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 1, 2012
    #43
  4. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > nospam writes:


    >> 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.


    Can you prove that?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 1, 2012
    #44
  5. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > ray writes:


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


    > No. There's one Windows,


    Windows 8 Pro
    Windows 8 Enterprise
    Windows RT
    Windows 7 Starter
    Windows 7 Home Basic
    Windows 7 Home Premium
    Windows 7 Professional
    Windows 7 Enterprise
    Windows 7 Ultimate
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Foundation
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Web
    Windows Server 2008 R2 HPC
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Itanium
    Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1
    Windows Mobile 6.5
    Windows Phone 7
    Windows Home Serve
    Windows XP Embedded
    Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
    Windows Embedded CE 6.0
    Windows Mobile 6.1
    Windows Server 2008 Standard
    Windows Server 2008 Enterprise
    Windows Server 2008 Datacenter
    Windows HPC Server 2008
    Windows Web Server 2008
    Windows Storage Server 2008
    Windows Small Business Server 2008
    Windows Essential Business Server 2008
    Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems
    Windows Server 2008 Foundation
    Windows Vista Starter
    Windows Vista Home Basic
    Windows Vista Home Premium
    Windows Vista Business
    Windows Vista Enterprise
    Windows Vista Ultimate

    And that's only the current versions, and folding in all the
    different languages and architectures ...

    Well, you're a liar. Who'd have guessed.


    > one Mac OS, and ten thousand Linux distributions. I
    > prefer to have a single version of the OS.


    You prefer to have no choice. Choice is bad. And you can't count.


    >> 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.


    > There's virtually nothing useful on Linux. There are millions of cottage
    > applications for Windows that don't exist for any other platform.


    There's virtually no braincell in your head.
    There are millions of Linux users that have tons of braincells
    that don't exist in your head.

    >> I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it was
    >> unsurpassed - which is true.


    > Lots and lots of operating systems had security better than Linux, even before
    > Linux existed. That includes Windows NT.


    If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth
    — Goebbels

    You may not even be aware that you lie --- that's because you
    understand nothing at all about security. All you understand
    is ACLs. That's as good as a "photographer" who rates cameras
    on nothing but weight, and therefore says that
    http://www.spycameracctv.com/spycamera/spy-pinhole-camera-hidden-380tvl-cmos
    is one of the very best cameras for high resolution high speed
    long distance action sports photography.


    >> MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly, trails in that area.


    > Windows NT is the most secure mass-market desktop OS available.


    True, and at the same time it's also the least secure mass-market
    desktop OS available. Which means ... exactly nothing.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 1, 2012
    #45
  6. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > nospam writes:


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


    > Mostly FreeBSD in recent years.


    Didn't anyone tell you FreeBSD has ACLs?

    >> specifics?


    > Windows has extremely fine-grained permissions, as compared to the nearly
    > useless system of UNIX. I can grant a specific user on Windows permission to
    > traverse a directory in order to look at subdirectories, without giving him
    > permission to do anything else in the directory. Likewise, there are create,
    > delete, modify, traverse, permissions modify, and other permissions, as I
    > recall (it has been a few years) ... plus others. Some are not even exposed in
    > user interfaces yet, although you can reach them through APIs.


    And where have you ever *needed* some ACL permission granularity
    that couldn't be done with Unix, or are you just wanking?


    BTW, finegrained permissions != security.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 1, 2012
    #46
  7. ray

    Mayayana Guest

    |
    | >> Amen. But WINE is not an emulator. It is an application interface - big
    | >> difference.
    |
    | > It's more code than Windows by itself.
    |
    | More code doesn't imply slower.
    |

    WINE is essentially an interpreter. They've created
    Linux libraries to interpret Windows API calls into Linux
    functionality. I haven't tried it since around .9+ or
    1.0, but at that time, at least, the lag was very
    noticeable. Anything that needed speed optimization
    on Windows was generally hopeless under WINE, with
    the best functionality obtained by using the Windows
    libraries.

    I'd love to see Linux/WINE function as a Windows
    development platform, but I'm not optimistic. The WINE
    people are trying to get particular programs (games, mostly)
    that Linux people want to work on Linux. They are not --
    and have no interest in -- providing a usable, documented
    API for Windows developers. That means that WINE usability
    will probably always be subject to the whims of the WINE
    contributors.
     
    Mayayana, Sep 1, 2012
    #47
  8. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Aug 31, 6:30 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
    wrote:
    > -hh <> wrote:
    > > [...]
    > > 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.

    >
    > Only so far as the computer is slowing down the user.
    > (Example: typing a text.  The computer does nothing but wait for
    > the user.  Waiting faster doesn't speed up the user or the task.)


    Agreed, although the "text typing" as an example hasn't been computer
    limited for a good 35 years. From the photography perspective, it
    would include how long it takes to open/close image files, what the
    dwell time is for various Photoshop filters, etc. There's a nonlinear
    effect present in some of these UI factors too.

    > There is also the possibility of using faster software.
    > (E.g. better (faster) algorithms or software that uses the GPU
    > for calculations.)


    All of that minutia is wrapped up in a holistic 'sufficiency'.


    > > In this regards, Apple's "Time Machine" portion of OS X is brain-dead-
    > > simple to use and quite effective.

    >
    > Yep, that thing is a VERY good idea and has a very simple and
    > effective interface.  Apple's to be congratulated on that!


    And because of that, it gets used.

    > > True, true from a pedantic
    > > 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.

    >
    > Ah, but the camera is something you take along or not, easily
    > changing the decision every time you leave the house, but a backup
    > system is something you install once and then keep on the machine.


    True, but unfortunately, there's still too many people who don't even
    flip on Apple's baked-in utility, let alone go jump through the
    additional hoops to find, install & configure one in Windows.

    Personally, I expect that historians in the future will look back at
    the period of 2000-2025 as the "valley of death for photo images"
    because the digital medium to date simply hasn't been as real-world
    archival as film, due to non-robust data backup plans. Ask around the
    office and you'll probably easily find 30-50% of colleagues who have
    lost data in a 'home PC' hard drive crash.


    > > 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.

    >
    > Uh, I wouldn't base my OS decision on a backup tool, especially as
    > there are a multitude of backup tools available.  Buildin backup
    > should be only *one* out of many points.


    Agreed it should be, but data retention still is quite important a
    factor. In theory it shouldn't be a differentiator because any OS can
    be set up to do it, but the reality remains that even though it is
    relatively easy, few people do it. As such, there's a lot of people
    whose data is highly vulnerable. Here's an example

    (albeit dated 2006):
    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=440066

    And a 2012:
    http://blog.backblaze.com/category/backup-awareness-month/


    -hh
     
    -hh, Sep 1, 2012
    #48
  9. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:50:11 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    <> wrote:

    >Ask around the
    >office and you'll probably easily find 30-50% of colleagues who have
    >lost data in a 'home PC' hard drive crash.


    It's your assertion that one-third to one-half of all home PCs
    experience a hard drive crash?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 1, 2012
    #49
  10. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Sep 1, 12:09 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:50:11 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Ask around the
    > >office and you'll probably easily find 30-50% of colleagues who have
    > >lost data in a 'home PC' hard drive crash.

    >
    > It's your assertion that one-third to one-half of all home PCs
    > experience a hard drive crash?


    Nope. Try reading it again.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Sep 1, 2012
    #50
  11. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 03:49:55 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    <> wrote:

    >On Sep 1, 12:09 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:50:11 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >Ask around the
    >> >office and you'll probably easily find 30-50% of colleagues who have
    >> >lost data in a 'home PC' hard drive crash.

    >>
    >> It's your assertion that one-third to one-half of all home PCs
    >> experience a hard drive crash?

    >
    >Nope. Try reading it again.


    I'm trying to give you some weasel room, Hugh. I can arrive at "nope"
    only when:

    1. You can only easily find a third to a half of your colleagues who
    have had a hard drive crash, but the other half to two-thirds remain
    in hiding. Evidently, you are referring to some office situation
    where your colleagues play hide-and-seek.

    2. Your office setting is in Yeehaw Junction, Florida...the lightning
    capital of the world, and your statement refers only to this group.

    3. The vast majority of home PCs are owned by retirees and the
    unemployed, so there is very small number of PCs owned by office
    colleagues, and these people keep plugging their computers into the
    220V outlet.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 1, 2012
    #51
  12. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Sep 1, 9:10 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 03:49:55 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 1, 12:09 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:50:11 -0700 (PDT), -hh

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >> >Ask around the
    > >> >office and you'll probably easily find 30-50% of colleagues who have
    > >> >lost data in a 'home PC' hard drive crash.

    >
    > >> It's your assertion that one-third to one-half of all home PCs
    > >> experience a hard drive crash?

    >
    > >Nope.  Try reading it again.

    >
    > I'm trying to give you some weasel room, Hugh.  I can arrive at "nope"
    > only when:
    >
    > 1.  You can only easily find a third to a half of your colleagues who
    > have had a hard drive crash, but the other half to two-thirds remain
    > in hiding.  Evidently, you are referring to some office situation
    > where your colleagues play hide-and-seek.


    Incorrect.


    > 2.  Your office setting is in Yeehaw Junction, Florida...the lightning
    > capital of the world, and your statement refers only to this group.


    Incorrect.


    > 3.  The vast majority of home PCs are owned by retirees and the
    > unemployed, so there is very small number of PCs owned by office
    > colleagues, and these people keep plugging their computers into the
    > 220V outlet.


    Incorrect.



    -hh
     
    -hh, Sep 1, 2012
    #52
  13. On 01/09/2012 6:49 AM, -hh wrote:
    > On Sep 1, 12:09 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:50:11 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> Ask around the
    >>> office and you'll probably easily find 30-50% of colleagues who have
    >>> lost data in a 'home PC' hard drive crash.

    >>
    >> It's your assertion that one-third to one-half of all home PCs
    >> experience a hard drive crash?

    >
    > Nope. Try reading it again.
    >
    >
    > -hh
    >


    I've been using PC's since the mid-1980's I've never had a harddrive
    crash! I've replaced and cloned some that were starting to act up, but I
    have never lost any data.

    As Macs used the same type of hardware in terms of mechanics, the only
    difference would be FAT tables, if a drive is going to die, it's going
    to die!
     
    Usenet Account, Sep 1, 2012
    #53
  14. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <k1tav2$n3c$>, Usenet Account
    <> wrote:

    > I've been using PC's since the mid-1980's I've never had a harddrive
    > crash! I've replaced and cloned some that were starting to act up, but I
    > have never lost any data.


    you are *extremely* lucky and should go buy a lottery ticket, or you're
    lying.

    > As Macs used the same type of hardware in terms of mechanics, the only
    > difference would be FAT tables, if a drive is going to die, it's going
    > to die!


    macs use standard off the shelf hard drives, but they do not use a fat
    file system. they use hfs or hfs+, depending on how old the mac is.
     
    nospam, Sep 1, 2012
    #54
  15. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > 2. Your office setting is in Yeehaw Junction, Florida...the lightning
    > capital of the world, and your statement refers only to this group.


    lightning is not a major cause of hard drive failures. in fact, it
    probably causes no hard drive failures at all. a lightning strike will
    normally affect the power supply of a hard drive, but not the hard
    drive itself, so all you need to do is put it in a new enclosure.
     
    nospam, Sep 1, 2012
    #55
  16. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:38:39 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <k1tav2$n3c$>, Usenet Account
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I've been using PC's since the mid-1980's I've never had a harddrive
    >> crash! I've replaced and cloned some that were starting to act up, but I
    >> have never lost any data.

    >
    >you are *extremely* lucky and should go buy a lottery ticket, or you're
    >lying.
    >

    That's two of us, then, and I guess we have to split the lottery
    winnings.

    I've never even replaced a hard drive. I have, however, purchased new
    PCs to replace an older PC. No replacement has been due to failure,
    though.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 1, 2012
    #56
  17. On 01/09/2012 1:10 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:38:39 -0700, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <k1tav2$n3c$>, Usenet Account
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been using PC's since the mid-1980's I've never had a harddrive
    >>> crash! I've replaced and cloned some that were starting to act up, but I
    >>> have never lost any data.

    >>
    >> you are *extremely* lucky and should go buy a lottery ticket, or you're
    >> lying.
    >>

    > That's two of us, then, and I guess we have to split the lottery
    > winnings.
    >
    > I've never even replaced a hard drive. I have, however, purchased new
    > PCs to replace an older PC. No replacement has been due to failure,
    > though.
    >
    >


    I have swapped out hard drives for bigger and faster ones, as
    applications etc tend to be bloatware.
     
    Usenet Account, Sep 1, 2012
    #57
  18. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 13:19:30 -0400, Usenet Account
    <> wrote:

    >On 01/09/2012 1:10 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:38:39 -0700, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <k1tav2$n3c$>, Usenet Account
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been using PC's since the mid-1980's I've never had a harddrive
    >>>> crash! I've replaced and cloned some that were starting to act up, but I
    >>>> have never lost any data.
    >>>
    >>> you are *extremely* lucky and should go buy a lottery ticket, or you're
    >>> lying.
    >>>

    >> That's two of us, then, and I guess we have to split the lottery
    >> winnings.
    >>
    >> I've never even replaced a hard drive. I have, however, purchased new
    >> PCs to replace an older PC. No replacement has been due to failure,
    >> though.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I have swapped out hard drives for bigger and faster ones, as
    >applications etc tend to be bloatware.


    In my own experience, a new computer is purchased to replace an old
    computer when the new computer offers several upgrades from hard drive
    size to processor speed and the cost is not significantly greater than
    adding new components to the old machine.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 1, 2012
    #58
  19. On 01/09/2012 2:07 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 13:19:30 -0400, Usenet Account
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 01/09/2012 1:10 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:38:39 -0700, nospam <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <k1tav2$n3c$>, Usenet Account
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've been using PC's since the mid-1980's I've never had a harddrive
    >>>>> crash! I've replaced and cloned some that were starting to act up, but I
    >>>>> have never lost any data.
    >>>>
    >>>> you are *extremely* lucky and should go buy a lottery ticket, or you're
    >>>> lying.
    >>>>
    >>> That's two of us, then, and I guess we have to split the lottery
    >>> winnings.
    >>>
    >>> I've never even replaced a hard drive. I have, however, purchased new
    >>> PCs to replace an older PC. No replacement has been due to failure,
    >>> though.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have swapped out hard drives for bigger and faster ones, as
    >> applications etc tend to be bloatware.

    >
    > In my own experience, a new computer is purchased to replace an old
    > computer when the new computer offers several upgrades from hard drive
    > size to processor speed and the cost is not significantly greater than
    > adding new components to the old machine.
    >
    >

    True, I have found this upgrade cycle is shorter than the MTBF of any
    computer I have owned.



    --
    X-No-Archive: Yes
     
    Usenet Account, Sep 1, 2012
    #59
  20. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

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

    >
    > Mac's are not walled gardens. There are dozens of compilers and many
    > IDE's for them, including Apple's Xcode.


    and with those, you can write *anything* you want and nobody is going
    to stop you.
     
    nospam, Sep 1, 2012
    #60
    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:
    312
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  2. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  3. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    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:
    1,295
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 31, 2012
  5. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    295
    nospam
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page