Re: What makes a mac better?

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

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper 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?


    Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
    Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
    everything; even things they have no personal experience with.

    It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
    qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
    experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.

    More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
    because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
    working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
    Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.

    Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
    that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
    of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
    purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
    refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
    pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

    I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
    best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
    them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
    aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
    When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
    is the best machine on the market?

    Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
    biased against Macs. I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
    that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
    with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
    satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
    person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
    choice.

    It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
    that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
    to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
    the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
    don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:49:55 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >There are areas (not universal) where the cost of equivalent spec macs
    >and PC's are very close, esp. in laptops. Yes you can make your case
    >where you don't need a quad core i7 laptop, an i3 dual core will do.
    >It's meaningless to those who need more powerful machines.
    >
    >Windows is bizarrely expensive and comes in several "levels". The least
    >expensive (and crippled level) is about $140 and is a license for one
    >machine. The most expensive "starts" at $280. And is a license for one
    >machine.
    >
    >OTOH, Upgrades to OS X are quite low priced. The current update to
    >"Lion" is "Mountain Lion" and is $20. There are no other flavours. And
    >that one license covers all Macs under one roof.
    >
    >So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
    >$600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of them.


    If a family of five requires five separate computers, and all want to
    upgrade from Vista to Win 7, that would be a choice like buying that
    more expensive laptop you mention above.

    I have WindowsXP on my desktop and Win7 on my laptop. I see no
    particular advantage or disadvantage to Win7, but prefer the
    familiarity of XP. I've never used Vista. The only time I've
    upgraded was when I first went to a Windows version yonks ago.

    I've never paid for an anti-virus. I used Norton, which came bundled,
    until they wanted money. I now use the free Avast anti-virus.

    >> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
    >> biased against Macs. I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
    >> that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
    >> with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
    >> satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
    >> person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
    >> choice.

    >
    >You can't help it.


    Oh, I think I could manage.

    >Get a Mac and you never go back. You will wave your
    >dick without embarrassment no matter how small. To have and use a Mac
    >is to have arrived. To be free of all the hassles of PC-dom.


    I'll let you know if I ever come across a hassle because of my PC
    ownership. So far, I've evolved from an Archives CP/M system to my
    present state without thinking I've been hassled. Ignorance is bliss,
    I guess.

    >> It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
    >> that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
    >> to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
    >> the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
    >> don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.

    >
    >Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
    >you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
    >hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.


    Again, it has to happen before I can recognize it. I haven't traveled
    all that much using my PC laptop, but I don't recall a hassle because
    of it. I did have to send down for a cable at the French Lick
    Sheraton because the unconnected PC would not pick up the wifi in
    those thick walls (very old resort hotel built in 1901), but I'm
    unaware if a Mac would have saved that ten minute delay in connecting.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    > People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.


    some might, but most don't.

    people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
    pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
    given task.

    what's important is getting the job done, not which tool you use.

    > Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
    > everything; even things they have no personal experience with.


    i never said anything of the sort.

    > It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
    > qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
    > experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.


    a car is just a car. a kia won't get you to the store any faster than a
    lexus or bmw or ferrari, but it won't be as comfortable of a ride.

    the difference is a mac does a lot of things with a lot less hassle.
    it's a 'nicer ride'.

    > More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
    > because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
    > working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
    > Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.


    you do have data to back that up? didn't think so.

    > Macs are more expensive than PCs.


    once again, they are not, and in some cases they are cheaper.

    > Mac-pimps are quick to point out
    > that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
    > of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
    > purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user.


    maybe in your personal dictionary it might be but not in anyone elses.

    compare like versus like.

    > Mac-pimps
    > refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
    > pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.


    more bullshit. nobody has said anything of the sort.

    and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
    which you are trying to deny.

    > I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
    > best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
    > them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
    > aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
    > When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
    > is the best machine on the market?


    many times, actually.

    pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now and dudley has
    been doing. in fact, most of the mac-pc flamewars began with an idiot
    making a bogus claim about macs and then a mac user corrects him.

    there is a *lot* of misinformation about macs out there, some of which
    might have been true 20 years ago, but mainly, it's just ignorance.

    mac users don't give a flying **** what people use. many mac users use
    pcs *and* macs, and are therefore able to make direct comparisons about
    which one is better for a particular task. for some things, a mac is
    the better choice and for others it isn't. pick the best tool for the
    job.

    mac bashers can't get this through their heads. all they know is
    windows windows windows. if a mac is better for a given task, they
    refuse to acknowledge it. they rant how macs are to be avoided and the
    users are wackos. they refuse to listen to anything about a mac or how
    something might possibly be easier to do on a different system.

    > Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
    > biased against Macs.


    bullshit. the fact that you call mac users 'mac-pimps' means are *very*
    biased against macs and mac users, and saying you aren't means you're a
    liar.

    > I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
    > that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
    > with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
    > satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
    > person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
    > choice.


    have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
    are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.

    > It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
    > that counts.


    that is true, but it contradicts your idiotic rant.

    > I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
    > to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
    > the machine they use.


    it's not the output that matters, it's the ease of which it can be
    done. as i said before about cars, it's a nicer ride.

    > And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
    > don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.


    because i have *no* interest in sharing it with you.

    furthermore, my artistic skills do not change anything i've said.

    you are once again, trying desperately to divert the issue.
    nospam, Aug 26, 2012
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > > Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
    > > that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
    > > of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
    > > purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
    > > refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
    > > pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

    >
    > There are areas (not universal) where the cost of equivalent spec macs
    > and PC's are very close, esp. in laptops. Yes you can make your case
    > where you don't need a quad core i7 laptop, an i3 dual core will do.
    > It's meaningless to those who need more powerful machines.
    >
    > Windows is bizarrely expensive and comes in several "levels". The least
    > expensive (and crippled level) is about $140 and is a license for one
    > machine. The most expensive "starts" at $280. And is a license for one
    > machine.
    >
    > OTOH, Upgrades to OS X are quite low priced. The current update to
    > "Lion" is "Mountain Lion" and is $20. There are no other flavours. And
    > that one license covers all Macs under one roof.
    >
    > So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
    > $600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of them.
    >
    > Or $20 if using 5 Macs in the same household.


    yep, and that's something the mac bashers ignore. they look at the
    initial price tag and assume there will be no other costs.

    > > I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
    > > best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
    > > them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
    > > aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
    > > When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
    > > is the best machine on the market?

    >
    > Go to the right forum and you will hear the hp/dell/etc. fights.
    >
    > This dickwaver uses both Windows and Macs (and even smatterings of
    > Linux) and can tell you without a smidgen of bias that Mac OS X is far
    > better than Windows which has evolved from meager beginnings to be a big
    > mediocrity of a thousand disjointed parts. A blivet. That is Windows.
    >
    > Mac hardware is very good stuff. That doesn't matter much because most
    > good PC brands are very good stuff too...
    >
    > Except in one area. When you buy an iMac or a Mac laptop, the displays
    > are head and shoulders above what is provided with PC kits and most (not
    > all) PC laptops. There is premium value in Mac displays. (And that's
    > not even counting the superlative retina displays now available on some
    > Macbooks and Macbook Air laptops and rumoured to be coming to the iMac
    > this fall).


    and there's also support.

    got a question or problem? go to an apple store and they'll help, no
    matter what it is. if the machine is not working properly, they'll
    diagnose it, whether it's in warranty or not. if it's not, a repair
    will probably cost money (no surprise there), but if it's a simple
    thing such as reseating memory, reinstalling an app, etc., it will be
    free.

    in fact, they'll even help with *non* mac products. i saw someone bring
    in a dell laptop and an ipod, and they walked him through getting it to
    work. repairs are done same day or next day, except for alan's apple
    store which is the lone exception to the rule. a year or so ago i
    dropped off my laptop at 9am in the morning and they called me a little
    after lunch to pick it up, fixed. try that at best buy and they
    wouldn't have even touched it let alone fix it in that time.

    > > It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
    > > that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
    > > to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
    > > the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
    > > don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.

    >
    > Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
    > you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
    > hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.


    as opposed to the likes of tony who hasn't used a mac and doesn't know
    what they can or cannot do.
    nospam, Aug 26, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/26/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012.08.26 15:28 , tony cooper 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?

    >>
    >> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    >> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.
    >> Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
    >> everything; even things they have no personal experience with.
    >>
    >> It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
    >> qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
    >> experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.
    >>
    >> More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
    >> because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
    >> working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
    >> Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.

    >
    > I disagree with that. A lot of Mac users, esp. the artsy sorts are
    > pretty lame when it comes to understanding everything going on on their
    > computers. But they are productive with them whether writing, doing art
    > (incl. photography) and so on. There is something about the fussless
    > way things are done that appeals to them.
    >
    >>
    >> Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
    >> that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
    >> of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
    >> purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
    >> refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
    >> pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.

    >
    > There are areas (not universal) where the cost of equivalent spec macs
    > and PC's are very close, esp. in laptops. Yes you can make your case
    > where you don't need a quad core i7 laptop, an i3 dual core will do.
    > It's meaningless to those who need more powerful machines.
    >
    > Windows is bizarrely expensive and comes in several "levels". The least
    > expensive (and crippled level) is about $140 and is a license for one
    > machine. The most expensive "starts" at $280. And is a license for one
    > machine.
    >
    > OTOH, Upgrades to OS X are quite low priced. The current update to
    > "Lion" is "Mountain Lion" and is $20. There are no other flavours. And
    > that one license covers all Macs under one roof.
    >
    > So a family of 5 having to upgrade all their PC's is looking at over
    > $600 to go from Vista to Win 7. And you'll need anti-virus for all of
    > them.
    >
    > Or $20 if using 5 Macs in the same household.
    >
    >> I don't think supporters of PCs say that their brand choice is the
    >> best as you have posited above. I think they do think it works for
    >> them and they are perfectly happy with their choice, but PC owners
    >> aren't dick-wavers about brand superiority like Mac owners tend to be.
    >> When have you ever heard a PC owner to say his e-machine or his Dell
    >> is the best machine on the market?

    >
    > Go to the right forum and you will hear the hp/dell/etc. fights.
    >
    > This dickwaver uses both Windows and Macs (and even smatterings of
    > Linux) and can tell you without a smidgen of bias that Mac OS X is far
    > better than Windows which has evolved from meager beginnings to be a big
    > mediocrity of a thousand disjointed parts. A blivet. That is Windows.
    >
    > Mac hardware is very good stuff. That doesn't matter much because most
    > good PC brands are very good stuff too...
    >
    > Except in one area. When you buy an iMac or a Mac laptop, the displays
    > are head and shoulders above what is provided with PC kits and most (not
    > all) PC laptops. There is premium value in Mac displays. (And that's
    > not even counting the superlative retina displays now available on some
    > Macbooks and Macbook Air laptops and rumoured to be coming to the iMac
    > this fall).
    >
    >> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
    >> biased against Macs. I just happened to drift into the PC area, found
    >> that I can do what I want and need to do on a PC, and remain satisfied
    >> with my choice. Had I started out on a Mac, I'd be perfectly
    >> satisfied with a Mac, but I hope that I would never become the type of
    >> person who thinks he is somehow superior or smarter for making that
    >> choice.

    >
    > You can't help it. Get a Mac and you never go back. You will wave your
    > dick without embarrassment no matter how small. To have and use a Mac
    > is to have arrived. To be free of all the hassles of PC-dom.
    >
    >> It's what you can do with the machine, not the name on the machine,
    >> that counts. I certainly don't see the output or results of Mac users
    >> to be superior to the output or results of PC users just because of
    >> the machine they use. And, in the case of one notable Mac-pimp, I
    >> don't see the output or results at all. I wonder why.

    >
    > Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
    > you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
    > hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.
    >


    True. And life under a dictatorship, without the right to choose, is
    simple too.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 26, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:05:48 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    >> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.

    >
    >some might, but most don't.
    >
    >people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
    >pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
    >given task.


    No, PC users don't bash Macs. We bash Mac-pimps. The machine is
    quite good. It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
    that we make fun of. We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
    don't dick-wave here.
    >
    >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
    >which you are trying to deny.


    I have no bias against the machine or anything about it. I do have a
    bias against people like you.
    >
    >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now


    Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.

    >> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
    >> biased against Macs.

    >
    >bullshit. the fact that you call mac users 'mac-pimps' means are *very*
    >biased against macs and mac users, and saying you aren't means you're a
    >liar.


    Didn't say I wasn't biased against some Mac users; just not biased
    against the machine.
    >
    >have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
    >are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.


    I'm sure a Mac could do what I want and need to do. But, since my PC
    already does that, why should I not stay with my PC?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <503a9319$0$6396$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > > Don't wonder but don't forget the journey is not only the end, but how
    > > you get there. Traveling with a Mac is far less trouble, effort and
    > > hassle than with a PC. I use both. I know.

    >
    > True. And life under a dictatorship, without the right to choose, is
    > simple too.


    what dictatorship?

    you can run any software you want on a mac, including a lot of open
    source software. macs use industry standard formats, such as mp3, aac,
    mpeg, h.264, pdf, etc.

    meanwhile, windows locks you in with proprietary formats and
    technologies like wmv, wma, active-x, .net, etc.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    > >> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.

    > >
    > >some might, but most don't.
    > >
    > >people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
    > >pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
    > >given task.

    >
    > No, PC users don't bash Macs.


    oh yes they do. check out the .advocacy groups sometime.

    and i didn't realize you are the chairperson for all pc users and speak
    for all of them.

    > We bash Mac-pimps.


    condescending remarks noted.

    mac users don't need to drop to puerile insults.

    > The machine is
    > quite good.


    yes it is.

    > It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
    > that we make fun of. We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
    > don't dick-wave here.


    another lie.

    > >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
    > >which you are trying to deny.

    >
    > I have no bias against the machine or anything about it. I do have a
    > bias against people like you.


    yes, that much is obvious.

    i could tell you the sky is blue and you'd find fault with it.

    > >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now

    >
    > Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.


    you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.

    > >> Despite the continuous whining of a certain Mac-pimp here, I'm not
    > >> biased against Macs.

    > >
    > >bullshit. the fact that you call mac users 'mac-pimps' means are *very*
    > >biased against macs and mac users, and saying you aren't means you're a
    > >liar.

    >
    > Didn't say I wasn't biased against some Mac users; just not biased
    > against the machine.


    bullshit.

    > >have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
    > >are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.

    >
    > I'm sure a Mac could do what I want and need to do. But, since my PC
    > already does that, why should I not stay with my PC?


    i never told you to switch. another lie.

    however, what you *don't* know is if a mac can do what you want and
    need to do with *less* hassle than what you have now.

    moving a window across displays is one example of less hassle. you
    think it's minor, and it is, but it's not the only difference. there
    are a lot of things that are easier on a mac and it adds up. at the end
    of the day, a lot of people find using macs to be less hassle and
    they're more productive, but it really depends on the task. for some
    things, windows is better. you've never done a side by side comparison,
    so you don't actually know which one is best for what you need to do.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:28:58 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >> It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
    >> that we make fun of. We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
    >> don't dick-wave here.

    >
    >another lie.
    >
    >> >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
    >> >which you are trying to deny.

    >>
    >> I have no bias against the machine or anything about it. I do have a
    >> bias against people like you.

    >
    >yes, that much is obvious.


    >i could tell you the sky is blue and you'd find fault with it.
    >
    >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now

    >>
    >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.

    >
    >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.


    A cite would be in order here. Macs are over-rated, but only by the
    Mac-pimps who think they have special powers because they own Macs.
    People who are confident of their own skills don't think the skills
    come from the machine's maker.

    I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
    in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
    works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
    I'd have been up to speed.

    What I didn't see was some magical *increase* in my skills. Nor, did
    I expect one. It was just another machine.

    My object of ridicule is you, just you. It's not the machine at all.
    You seem to have that cultist mentality that imbues special powers to
    the machine.

    As far as the rest of the Mac users, the Duck and Alan are the only
    two that I know that use a Mac, and only because they bring it up.
    Neither seems to have their nose up the Apple ports the way you do.
    Both like their systems, but both come across to me as people who have
    earned their chops because of their own skills, not because they use
    Macs. Take away their Macs, and their output wouldn't suffer beyond a
    short adjustment period. If that.

    You are just a rather silly True Believer who thinks you've been
    initiated into some exclusive club because you bought a particular
    product. It may be nice to think you can buy respectability at the
    Apple Store, but you came out with an empty bag.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 27, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
    > >>
    > >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.

    > >
    > >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.

    >
    > A cite would be in order here.


    there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
    over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
    thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
    that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.

    > Macs are over-rated, but only by the
    > Mac-pimps who think they have special powers because they own Macs.


    more nonsense and more insults.

    > People who are confident of their own skills don't think the skills
    > come from the machine's maker.


    i never said skills come from the machine's maker. more lies.

    > I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
    > in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
    > works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
    > I'd have been up to speed.


    photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
    your performance. it's the *exact* same app.

    > What I didn't see was some magical *increase* in my skills. Nor, did
    > I expect one. It was just another machine.


    nobody said a mac would magically increase your skills. more lies.

    > My object of ridicule is you, just you. It's not the machine at all.
    > You seem to have that cultist mentality that imbues special powers to
    > the machine.


    i do not give the machine special powers. where do you come up with
    that rubbish? more lies.

    i point out what macs can do and i also correct bogus and misleading
    statements made by others.

    > As far as the rest of the Mac users, the Duck and Alan are the only
    > two that I know that use a Mac, and only because they bring it up.


    i don't mention macs until someone else does, usually when they say
    something stupid or incorrect.

    > Neither seems to have their nose up the Apple ports the way you do.
    > Both like their systems, but both come across to me as people who have
    > earned their chops because of their own skills, not because they use
    > Macs. Take away their Macs, and their output wouldn't suffer beyond a
    > short adjustment period. If that.


    you don't know that. more bullshit.

    even if that were true, two people does not mean that would apply to
    everyone.

    there are many situations where a mac is the only solution, and
    replacing it with something else will bring productivity to *zero*.

    there are other situations where a mac makes things a *lot* easier and
    productivity would be severely impacted by replacing it with something
    else, but not zero.

    and there are situations where it doesn't matter what system you use,
    as there are ones where a pc is the best choice.

    i've said it before and i'll say it again, pick the best tool for the
    job. sometimes that's a mac, sometimes it's a pc and sometimes it's
    something else.

    you are a typical mindless pc fanboi and apple basher. you won't even
    consider a mac and if it might make things easier for you. maybe it
    will, maybe it won't, but like dudley, you've already decided ahead of
    time that it won't and you don't want one.

    > You are just a rather silly True Believer who thinks you've been
    > initiated into some exclusive club because you bought a particular
    > product. It may be nice to think you can buy respectability at the
    > Apple Store, but you came out with an empty bag.


    more insults and more bullshit.

    maybe one day you'll stop lying and have something valid to refute what
    i say rather than resort to ad hominem attacks. one can only hope.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:55:05 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
    >> >>
    >> >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
    >> >
    >> >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.

    >>
    >> A cite would be in order here.

    >
    >there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
    >over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
    >thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
    >that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.


    Typical weasel answer. You'd find a cite if there was one.

    When, btw, did you start doing "important" things?

    >> I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
    >> in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
    >> works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
    >> I'd have been up to speed.

    >
    >photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
    >your performance. it's the *exact* same app.


    Certainly there are differences. The structure for finding and
    opening files was different. I can't remember the specifics, but there
    were these little icons across the lower part of the screen. Not
    terribly complicated, but different enough that it slowed me down at
    first.

    The location of the keys was different on the Mac system that I used.
    The experienced Photoshop user doesn't look at the keyboard. The
    experienced Photoshop user instinctively goes for "Control + (key)"
    and has to stop and think about "Command + (key) until acclimation
    sets in. It takes a second to think that "Option + (key) is the same
    as "Alt + (key). The mouse was different.

    Photoshop is the same, but an experienced Photoshop user uses keyboard
    shortcuts and the mouse without conscious thought. Slow those down,
    and there's a slight decrease in performance until acclimation. Just
    as I said.


    >i don't mention macs until someone else does, usually when they say
    >something stupid or incorrect.


    You don't really believe this, do you?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 27, 2012
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Dudley
    Hanks <> wrote:

    > All guts and glory when you're telling a blind guy you know a better way for
    > him to work, but not so gutsy when the spotlight shines back your way?


    i never said i know a better way for you to work.

    all i did was refute your bogus claims.

    you won't admit you're wrong so now you're trying to shift it into
    something else.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 26/08/2012 20:28, tony cooper 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?

    >
    > Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    > People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.


    Macs are actually well engineered and specified when compared to the
    average consumer PC, but they are also overpriced. The main Mac user
    advantage is that OS/X is a lot more stable than Mickeysofts offering.
    Some of what you are paying for is brand image and expensive shops!

    And that is ignoring the still born even numbered versions of 'Doze that
    no-one ever loved like Vista and now the latest malformed Win8.

    > Mac-pimps like nospam automatically assume that Macs will be "best" at
    > everything; even things they have no personal experience with.
    >
    > It's just a machine; it doesn't endow the user with any special
    > qualities or abilities. As with any machine, proficiency comes with
    > experience, training (which can be self-training), and adaptability.
    >
    > More people with PCs have problems than people with Macs, but that's
    > because the average Mac buyer is a little more sophisticated about
    > working with a computer and going online than the average PC buyer.
    > Knowledgeable PC users don't tend to have the same problems.


    Moreover very knowledgable Mac users can buy certain off the shelf
    models of PC for which all the right Apple drivers exist and create a
    Hackintosh that works exactly like a real Mac except it is running on
    generic PC hardware (carefully chosen to match the right hardware spec).

    > Macs are more expensive than PCs. Mac-pimps are quick to point out
    > that PC computers with comparable specs are just as expensive, but one
    > of the definitions of "expensive" is the amount of money it takes to
    > purchase what will perform sufficiently for the user. Mac-pimps
    > refuse to recognize that not all users need or want or are willing to
    > pay for spec levels they don't expect to use.


    The main advantage for someone who just wants to use it as a tool is
    that the Mac is more likely to do what they want intuitively than the PC
    and is much less likely to corrupt its hard disk or require complete
    reinstallation of the OS because some program installer trashed the
    registry or malware found yet another buffer overrun exploit.

    I have both and I have to accept that the Mac is a much easier ride for
    non technical end user who is not into the details of computing.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 27, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 27/08/2012 05:08, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > nospam writes:
    >
    >> you can run any software you want on a mac, including a lot of open
    >> source software. macs use industry standard formats, such as mp3, aac,
    >> mpeg, h.264, pdf, etc.

    >
    > You can't build your own Mac.


    Actually you can. Look up Hackintosh.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 27, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
    > >> >
    > >> >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.
    > >>
    > >> A cite would be in order here.

    > >
    > >there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
    > >over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
    > >thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
    > >that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.

    >
    > Typical weasel answer. You'd find a cite if there was one.


    there is but i'm not going to dig through the zillions of posts. you
    are more than welcome to, however.

    > When, btw, did you start doing "important" things?


    long ago. why do you care?

    > >> I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
    > >> in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
    > >> works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
    > >> I'd have been up to speed.

    > >
    > >photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
    > >your performance. it's the *exact* same app.

    >
    > Certainly there are differences.


    not in photoshop there isn't. it's the exact same app from the same
    codebase.

    > The structure for finding and
    > opening files was different.


    the dialog looks a little different but it's nothing significant.

    > I can't remember the specifics, but there
    > were these little icons across the lower part of the screen.


    that's the dock, which is part of os x, not photoshop. on windows you
    have the taskbar. similar concept.

    > Not
    > terribly complicated, but different enough that it slowed me down at
    > first.


    except once you launch photoshop, it's the same.

    other stuff is different, some dramatically so, but you mentioned
    photoshop, and photoshop is the *same*.

    > The location of the keys was different on the Mac system that I used.
    > The experienced Photoshop user doesn't look at the keyboard. The
    > experienced Photoshop user instinctively goes for "Control + (key)"
    > and has to stop and think about "Command + (key) until acclimation
    > sets in. It takes a second to think that "Option + (key) is the same
    > as "Alt + (key).


    plug in whatever keyboard you prefer. any standard usb keyboard will
    work.

    > The mouse was different.


    plug in whatever mouse you prefer. any standard usb mouse will work.

    keyboards and mice are very subjective. everyone likes something
    different. go to a computer store and there are a wide variety of
    keyboards and mice, and it has nothing to do with macs or windows
    systems.

    > Photoshop is the same, but an experienced Photoshop user uses keyboard
    > shortcuts and the mouse without conscious thought. Slow those down,
    > and there's a slight decrease in performance until acclimation. Just
    > as I said.


    if you sat down at another windows system with a different mouse and a
    different keyboard, you'd have the same issues.

    it's not mac or windows, it's picking the keyboard and mouse you prefer.

    personally, i hate apple's mice, so i bought something else.

    > >i don't mention macs until someone else does, usually when they say
    > >something stupid or incorrect.

    >
    > You don't really believe this, do you?


    where have i started a thread about macs?
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Dudley
    Hanks <> wrote:

    > >> All guts and glory when you're telling a blind guy you know a better way
    > >> for him to work, but not so gutsy when the spotlight shines back your way?

    > >
    > > i never said i know a better way for you to work.
    > >
    > > all i did was refute your bogus claims.
    > >
    > > you won't admit you're wrong so now you're trying to shift it into
    > > something else.

    >
    > Refute my bogus claims?


    yes.

    > How can my asertian that I don't like apple


    that is not the bogus part.

    > and am not likely to ever buy
    > one of their blind unfriendly products again be considered bogus?


    that part is definitely bogus.

    apple's products are *not* blind unfriendly. quite the opposite. apple
    spends a *lot* of time making their products easy to use for people
    with visual impairments, hearing impairments and mobility impairments.
    their products are *very* blind friendly.

    > All that says is that I don't like the company or its products, and that I
    > consider their lineup unfriendly to somebody with my degree of vision loss.


    what it says is that you can't see past your hatred to even give it a
    fair chance. that's really quite sad.

    > Given you don't have my likes, dislikes or vision loss, I fail to see how
    > you are in a position to confidently claim my assertian as bogus.


    it has nothing to do with your likes or dislikes or your ability to see.

    for example, one of your claims was that the ipad can't be used by
    blind people. that's bullshit. it turns out that not only can an ipad
    be used by blind people, but two organizations for blind people love
    the ipad and think it's fantastic. i posted the links, as well as
    another link from two blind people who actually use an ipad who also
    love it.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > and there's also support.

    >
    > A system that needs support is either defective or badly designed.


    more idiocy.

    > It's better to have a good computer that never fails and comes with no support
    > than to have a bad computer that fails regularly but has excellent support.


    which computer never fails and where can i buy one?

    we live in an imperfect world. stuff breaks. stuff wears out and needs
    to be replaced. stuff needs to be upgraded. sometimes people need
    someone to teach them how to do something.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > you can run any software you want on a mac, including a lot of open
    > > source software. macs use industry standard formats, such as mp3, aac,
    > > mpeg, h.264, pdf, etc.

    >
    > You can't build your own Mac.


    who cares. most people don't build their own pcs and they certainly
    don't build their own laptops.

    and actually, you can build your own mac, it's just pointless.
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    -hh Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:
    > nospam <> wrote:
    > >tony cooper <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion.
    > >> People who buy Macs tend to become evangelical about their choice.

    >
    > >some might, but most don't.

    >
    > >people who buy pcs tend to bash macs a *lot* more than mac users bash
    > >pcs. many mac users have both and pick the one which is best for a
    > >given task.

    >
    > No, PC users don't bash Macs.  We bash Mac-pimps.


    That's still bashing.

    > The machine is
    > quite good.  It's just the annoying people who use them, like you,
    > that we make fun of.  We don't even bash the rest of the Mac users who
    > don't dick-wave here.


    That's quite a chip on your shoulder there, Tony. Perhaps you could
    point to something specific that was done in this specific thread that
    caused you to lash out with so much loathing and hate?

    Oh, right, here it is:

    "Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."

    That's attacking the inanimate product, not a human "pimp".


    In other related news:

    " I've replaced computers, but that's because I never bought a top-of-
    the-line computer to begin with."

    A common Anti-Mac complaint is that they're "overpriced", which has
    been mentioned in this thread. When one objectively examines that
    assertion, what one finds are three factors:

    1. On an 'equal hardware' basis, the so-called "Apple Tax" is
    typically 10% or less. YMMV on if the various differences are worth
    it.

    2. Apple has a small product line, which can result in wide gaps in
    the hardware configurations and similarly large price increments too.
    To a certain degree this can be considered another part of the "Tax"
    too, but this is a misnomer, since any one manufacturer's product line
    will always be a subset of their overall industry. For example, as
    broad as Dell's product line is, it is still less than (Dell + HP +
    Apple + Lenovo + etc) combined.

    3. The law of diminishing returns applies in the performance of IT
    equipment, with gaining each +10% of performance costing more than the
    last. As such, the first ~50% of max performance comes quite cheaply
    today. If this level of hardware suits one's individual needs, then
    great! One can even buy used or discontinued models at steep
    discounts. However, this is an individual requirement, and it
    provides little guidance for those users for which it does not apply.


    > >and the fact you are calling mac users 'mac-pimps' shows your bias, one
    > >which you are trying to deny.

    >
    > I have no bias against the machine or anything about it.  I do have a
    > bias against people like you.


    "Mac products are to computers what snake handling is to religion."

    Right out of the gate, even before anyone stepped forward to say
    anything positive about a particular brand of hardware. And then when
    someone did step forward, you attacked them too.

    Very disappointing ... and furthermore, the point doesn't even address
    the OP's question, at least in a civilized manner.

    To retate Tony's point, he doesn't like Macs because he believes that
    its user base are smug & arrogant.

    Got it. Now let's move on.


    > >have you ever looked at how a mac can do what you need to do? no. you
    > >are just staying with pc because you don't know any different.

    >
    > I'm sure a Mac could do what I want and need to do.  But, since my PC
    > already does that, why should I not stay with my PC?



    So then just stay with what works for you, and live and let live. If
    the OP wants to take the risk that he's going to turn into a dickhead
    by using a Mac, that's his business ... and of course, all that Tony
    has demonstrated is that having a Mac is not actually a strict
    requirement for that :)


    -hh
    -hh, Aug 27, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:48:27 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >> >pc users tend to bash macs, like you're doing right now
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Nope. Never have. Cite one instance of me bashing the machine.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >you've done it more than once in the various threads we've had.
    >> >>
    >> >> A cite would be in order here.
    >> >
    >> >there have been many threads in this newsgroup about macs and windows
    >> >over the last year or two, with hundreds and hundreds of posts in each
    >> >thread. i have far more important things to do than to reread all of
    >> >that and find each instance where you've bashed macs.

    >>
    >> Typical weasel answer. You'd find a cite if there was one.

    >
    >there is but i'm not going to dig through the zillions of posts. you
    >are more than welcome to, however.
    >
    >> When, btw, did you start doing "important" things?

    >
    >long ago. why do you care?
    >
    >> >> I've worked with a Mac using Photoshop. There was a slight decrease
    >> >> in my performance because I wasn't used to the way the Mac system
    >> >> works, but I don't blame that on the machine. Another week or two and
    >> >> I'd have been up to speed.
    >> >
    >> >photoshop is the same on both. there should have been *no* decrease in
    >> >your performance. it's the *exact* same app.

    >>
    >> Certainly there are differences.

    >
    >not in photoshop there isn't. it's the exact same app from the same
    >codebase.
    >
    >> The structure for finding and
    >> opening files was different.

    >
    >the dialog looks a little different but it's nothing significant.
    >
    >> I can't remember the specifics, but there
    >> were these little icons across the lower part of the screen.

    >
    >that's the dock, which is part of os x, not photoshop. on windows you
    >have the taskbar. similar concept.
    >
    >> Not
    >> terribly complicated, but different enough that it slowed me down at
    >> first.

    >
    >except once you launch photoshop, it's the same.


    You may have finally come across an area where Macs are not only
    clearly superior, but amazingly different. You have a way of using
    Photoshop without the keyboard or the mouse or finding files to open.
    How is that done? Voice command? Mental telepathy? Poltergeists?

    To say that using Photoshop with two machines with different key
    factors is the same is patently ridiculous.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, 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. ray

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    ray, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    105
    Views:
    1,958
  2. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    292
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  3. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    294
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  4. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  5. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    274
    nospam
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page