My Morning Hardware Disaster

On 12/26/2014 2:23 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:38:46 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 2:22 PM, John Navas wrote:

Another source: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53742996
Windows 40.4%
Mac 41.3%
Both Windows & Mac 11.9%
Linux 3.7%

That looks like reasonable confirmation to me,
and I think that puts the burden on you.

Now what is the original question?

In Article
on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:14:16 -0500, nospam wrote:
yet the majority of graphics professionals choose macs.

That was my way of saying we have drifted too far from the original
topic. :-)

--
PeterN

On 12/26/2014 9:09 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:39:12 -0500, PeterN wrote:

The statement we were discussing was professional photographers
swutching to Macs. ...

It was actually "graphics professionals" (not photographers).


OK.
I would think it even less likely that the surveys prsented would have
any statistical signifigance.

--
PeterN

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:39:12 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/26/2014 4:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:57:55 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 11:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 21:28:18 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 6:59 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:04:48 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 1:02 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:12:23 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 3:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:55:58 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/23/2014 4:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no point going on arguing about this. Can you find a better
source of data?

I am not the one who is trying to make a point.

You are the person who criticised my source of data. I hoped you would
have better.

It's really very simple. You have inadequate jprooof for your statement.
I will not attempt to prove a negative.

With respect, reasonable data is better than no data, and there's
nothing obviously unreasonable about that data other than speculation,
so if you want to criticize it, you really ought to try to identify
data you think is better. Just being critical isn't terribly helpful.


"what is "reasonable data?"
In logic 101 I learned that when a person makes a statement of fact,
that person has the burden of proving that statement.
e.g. If I state that John Navas has produced some excellent ship racing
photos, a ship racing photo, not taken by you, would not support my
statement, even though my statement was true.

You are trying to change the ground of the argument to an
inappropriate form.

nospam made the statement "the majority of graphics professionals
choose macs".

I cited
http://digital-photography-school.co...-poll-results/
or http://tinyurl.com/lq4el79 to suggest that might not be the case.

You then said "Sorry Eric, tht link is to a site that caters to rank
amatures, not graphics professionals".

I responded by saying:

" If you look around the site I think you will find that they cater
for all levels of expertise, including professionals. And note the
survey question *Do You Use a Mac or PC for Post Production*. How
many amatuers really even know what post production is? I think
that question is heavily biased to professionals. Apart from that,
it was the first site which came up. :-)"

John Navas came in at that point to say "reasonable data is better
than no data, and there's nothing obviously unreasonable about that
data other than speculation, so if you want to criticize it, you
really ought to try to identify data you think is better. Just being
critical isn't terribly helpful".

You have replied "In logic 101 I learned that when a person makes a
statement of fact, that person has the burden of proving that
statement".

You can only abandon the original line of the discussion by turning a
search for the truth into an exercise in Aristotlean logic.
Unfortunately we do not know nearly enough to do that and I doubt that
we ever will. This discussion is in the field of probabilities and
reliability of evidence. I would summarise what has gone as saying
that I have rebutted nospam with not entirely reliable evidence but
that the evidence is not as unreliable as you would have it be.


What do you mean by "we?"

You, me and us.


Please do not include me as lacking knowledge of logic. ;-)

But you are ignorant of the facts required to enable you to reach a
logical outcome. But then, perhaps, so were we all.


The statement we were discussing was professional photographers
swutching to Macs. I know enough about logic to claim that none of the
statements cited contained sufficient information to support that
conclusion. There was no showing of a statistically signifigant
relationship to professional photographers.

But reaching a conclusion about the number of graphics professionals
.... is not a question of logic but statistics. Only once the
statistics have been sorted out can the logic be applied.

For some reason I'm not going there.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/26/2014 10:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:39:12 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/26/2014 4:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:57:55 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 11:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 21:28:18 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 6:59 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:04:48 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 1:02 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:12:23 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 3:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:55:58 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/23/2014 4:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no point going on arguing about this. Can you find a better
source of data?

I am not the one who is trying to make a point.

You are the person who criticised my source of data. I hoped you would
have better.

It's really very simple. You have inadequate jprooof for your statement.
I will not attempt to prove a negative.

With respect, reasonable data is better than no data, and there's
nothing obviously unreasonable about that data other than speculation,
so if you want to criticize it, you really ought to try to identify
data you think is better. Just being critical isn't terribly helpful.


"what is "reasonable data?"
In logic 101 I learned that when a person makes a statement of fact,
that person has the burden of proving that statement.
e.g. If I state that John Navas has produced some excellent ship racing
photos, a ship racing photo, not taken by you, would not support my
statement, even though my statement was true.

You are trying to change the ground of the argument to an
inappropriate form.

nospam made the statement "the majority of graphics professionals
choose macs".

I cited
http://digital-photography-school.co...-poll-results/
or http://tinyurl.com/lq4el79 to suggest that might not be the case.

You then said "Sorry Eric, tht link is to a site that caters to rank
amatures, not graphics professionals".

I responded by saying:

" If you look around the site I think you will find that they cater
for all levels of expertise, including professionals. And note the
survey question *Do You Use a Mac or PC for Post Production*. How
many amatuers really even know what post production is? I think
that question is heavily biased to professionals. Apart from that,
it was the first site which came up. :-)"

John Navas came in at that point to say "reasonable data is better
than no data, and there's nothing obviously unreasonable about that
data other than speculation, so if you want to criticize it, you
really ought to try to identify data you think is better. Just being
critical isn't terribly helpful".

You have replied "In logic 101 I learned that when a person makes a
statement of fact, that person has the burden of proving that
statement".

You can only abandon the original line of the discussion by turning a
search for the truth into an exercise in Aristotlean logic.
Unfortunately we do not know nearly enough to do that and I doubt that
we ever will. This discussion is in the field of probabilities and
reliability of evidence. I would summarise what has gone as saying
that I have rebutted nospam with not entirely reliable evidence but
that the evidence is not as unreliable as you would have it be.


What do you mean by "we?"

You, me and us.


Please do not include me as lacking knowledge of logic. ;-)

But you are ignorant of the facts required to enable you to reach a
logical outcome. But then, perhaps, so were we all.


The statement we were discussing was professional photographers
swutching to Macs. I know enough about logic to claim that none of the
statements cited contained sufficient information to support that
conclusion. There was no showing of a statistically signifigant
relationship to professional photographers.

But reaching a conclusion about the number of graphics professionals
... is not a question of logic but statistics. Only once the
statistics have been sorted out can the logic be applied.

For some reason I'm not going there.


Explain how one can reach a conclusion about graphics professionals,
based upon data that does not quatify the population of graphics
professionals.


--
PeterN

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:05:33 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/26/2014 9:09 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:39:12 -0500, PeterN wrote:

The statement we were discussing was professional photographers
swutching to Macs. ...

It was actually "graphics professionals" (not photographers).


OK.
I would think it even less likely that the surveys prsented would have
any statistical signifigance.

You see, that's probabilistic and not Aristotlean :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:45:07 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/26/2014 10:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:39:12 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/26/2014 4:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:57:55 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 11:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 21:28:18 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 6:59 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:04:48 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 1:02 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:12:23 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/25/2014 3:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:55:58 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/23/2014 4:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no point going on arguing about this. Can you find a better
source of data?

I am not the one who is trying to make a point.

You are the person who criticised my source of data. I hoped you would
have better.

It's really very simple. You have inadequate jprooof for your statement.
I will not attempt to prove a negative.

With respect, reasonable data is better than no data, and there's
nothing obviously unreasonable about that data other than speculation,
so if you want to criticize it, you really ought to try to identify
data you think is better. Just being critical isn't terribly helpful.


"what is "reasonable data?"
In logic 101 I learned that when a person makes a statement of fact,
that person has the burden of proving that statement.
e.g. If I state that John Navas has produced some excellent ship racing
photos, a ship racing photo, not taken by you, would not support my
statement, even though my statement was true.

You are trying to change the ground of the argument to an
inappropriate form.

nospam made the statement "the majority of graphics professionals
choose macs".

I cited
http://digital-photography-school.co...-poll-results/
or http://tinyurl.com/lq4el79 to suggest that might not be the case.

You then said "Sorry Eric, tht link is to a site that caters to rank
amatures, not graphics professionals".

I responded by saying:

" If you look around the site I think you will find that they cater
for all levels of expertise, including professionals. And note the
survey question *Do You Use a Mac or PC for Post Production*. How
many amatuers really even know what post production is? I think
that question is heavily biased to professionals. Apart from that,
it was the first site which came up. :-)"

John Navas came in at that point to say "reasonable data is better
than no data, and there's nothing obviously unreasonable about that
data other than speculation, so if you want to criticize it, you
really ought to try to identify data you think is better. Just being
critical isn't terribly helpful".

You have replied "In logic 101 I learned that when a person makes a
statement of fact, that person has the burden of proving that
statement".

You can only abandon the original line of the discussion by turning a
search for the truth into an exercise in Aristotlean logic.
Unfortunately we do not know nearly enough to do that and I doubt that
we ever will. This discussion is in the field of probabilities and
reliability of evidence. I would summarise what has gone as saying
that I have rebutted nospam with not entirely reliable evidence but
that the evidence is not as unreliable as you would have it be.


What do you mean by "we?"

You, me and us.


Please do not include me as lacking knowledge of logic. ;-)

But you are ignorant of the facts required to enable you to reach a
logical outcome. But then, perhaps, so were we all.


The statement we were discussing was professional photographers
swutching to Macs. I know enough about logic to claim that none of the
statements cited contained sufficient information to support that
conclusion. There was no showing of a statistically signifigant
relationship to professional photographers.

But reaching a conclusion about the number of graphics professionals
... is not a question of logic but statistics. Only once the
statistics have been sorted out can the logic be applied.

For some reason I'm not going there.


Explain how one can reach a conclusion about graphics professionals,
based upon data that does not quatify the population of graphics
professionals.

What are you trying to do to me?

You can reach a conclusion, with a degree of confidence depends upon
the confidence you can place in the data you used to reach that
conclusion.

Bell curve upon bell curve ....

Whatever it is, that kind of analysis is only dimly Aristotlean.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/27/2014 11:26 AM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:45:07 -0500, PeterN wrote:

Explain how one can reach a conclusion about graphics professionals,
based upon data that does not quatify the population of graphics
professionals.

It's called sampling, and only a rough population estimate is needed.


True.

I must be wrong when I thought, as a minimum:
that even a rough estimate should have a basis;

that when estimates are given, for validity checking purposes, the
underlying assumptions are stated;

that a survey without some safeguards against aquisition of duplicate,
or false data is not statistically significant.

that there should be a detrminable confidence factor, (stated margin of
error.)

--
PeterN

On 12/28/2014 7:17 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:18:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

the fact is that ssds make a *huge* difference in performance, even
back then and even more so now with pci-e ssd which eliminates the sata
bottleneck.

The best SSDs of 2014: A buyers guide | ExtremeTech
By Joel Hruska on October 15, 2014 at 11:49 am
Is beating the SATA bottleneck worth it?
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/191934-the-best-ssds-of-2014-a-buyers-guide/2

Let’s say you want to beat the SATA bottleneck and move to something
faster. You’ve got some options here, including the PCI Express bus or
the newer M.2 standard. M.2, not to be confused with mSATA, is an
emerging standard that’s just beginning to appear on a handful of
desktop boards. There’s also SATA Express — an emerging standard with
no currently shipping native drives, but that promises to double drive
throughput once it goes mainstream (a number of Z97 and X99
motherboards currently support M.2 or SATA-Express in some form, but
the details of each implementation tend to be board specific).

Right now there’s a limited number of PCIe/M.2 drives, and they don’t
always offer higher performance than top-end SATA hardware. ...

Drive copy speeds and times also favored the Samsung 850 Pro — even
though it’s hampered by the SATA 6G bus.

I’m not saying that a PCI Express-based SSD can’t be faster than a
standard consumer drive, because they obviously can be — but how much
faster is going to still depend on workload, drive controller, and how
much PCIe bandwidth is actually provided to the drive. Right now, the
850 Pro still looks like a better bet for all-around excellent
performance without paying the premium M.2 or PCIe drives tend to
command.


Thanks for posting tht interesting article.

--
PeterN