Rockwell - "but what about Godwin's"

On 9/16/09 11:11 , C J Campbell wrote:
On 2009-09-16 02:12:21 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:33:30 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Nikon's top of the line DSLRs still do not have sensor dust removal.

Really? The cheaper ones do. I have no idea about what's happening at
the
top of the line.

The D300 has ultrasonic dust removal. So too, presumably, do the
higher order cameras.



Eric Stevens

One would think so, but they don't. Adorama even advertises the D3X as
having it, but it does not. None of Nikon's FX cameras have it.




D700 has it.

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Yes, they are getting pretty silly. I thought adding WiFi to Coolpixes was
silly, and GPS seems even more so -- especially if it takes two minutes or
so for acquisition as the TomTom in my car does.

you need a better gps. hotstarts should be 1-2 seconds, cold starts
around 20-30 seconds unless it has been off for several days. there's
even a gps add-on that doesn't need any startup time since it records
the raw satellite data and crunches it later, on a desktop computer.

In article , DG
wrote:

Just took a quick read over at Ken's site. He's now on the PC vs. Mac
thread where he spews. He talks about upgrading a hard drive and how
easy it is on a Mac. 20 years ago I ran a Mac lab and a PC lab. I've
built, installed various OS's and networked hundreds (probably
thousands) of computers. I don't see a big difference except in
software availability (pc wins) between the two tools. If it works
for you great.

actually, neither wins. there are pc-only titles and mac-only titles.
most stuff runs on either one. it all depends what you need to do.

Here is what he says about installing a hard drive:
"If I was on Windows, I'd be taking all week trying to get it to work
again. " Really? You need some computer store guy to walk you
through your Mac installation and you criticize PCs for it?

I just bought a new 1.5 tb drive and it will take less than a minute
to get the SATA drive installed and recognized by the OS. I have a
great case (nothing to do with the OS). Sure it will take some time
to format but Mac doesn't have a magic bullet when it comes to
formatting a drive.

As usual, Ken goes for the divisive issue of Ford/chevy,
nikon/leica/canon, and mac/pc. Probably a good idea to get those Mac
people whipped into a frenzy while computer people roll their eyes at
his ignorance.

you do realize that by ken's own admission, he makes up stuff and says
that his site is to be taken as a joke, just like the onion, right?

On 9/16/09 11:36 , DG wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 9/16/09 11:06 , DG wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

I dropped a fresh 1.5TB into my Mac and it found and formatted
the drive in a few minutes.

The primary difference between Windows and Mac, in this process,
is, the tools for adding, switching, modifying a drive are all
built-in to the O/S on a Mac. Under most Windows systems they
require third party, and often proprietary, software.


No.

Right click my computer Manage Storage... etc.

No third party software required.


I did say 'most.'


Maybe I'm ignorant but which MSFT OS requires third party software to
format a hard drive?



Ah..I see the confusion. I wasn't referring to simple formatting,
as much as I was about cloning a drive for replacement or
transferring contents to a new drive.

You can format a drive from the early DOS days without additional
software.

But if you want to transfer contents to a new drive, add, delete
or modify a partition, you need a third party application under
Windows, whereas the Mac O/S has the utiltities for this built in.

The processes are reasonably close to being the same, and take
the same amount of time depending on machine parameters.

In article , DG
wrote:

Just took a quick read over at Ken's site. He's now on the PC vs. Mac
thread where he spews. He talks about upgrading a hard drive and how
easy it is on a Mac. 20 years ago I ran a Mac lab and a PC lab. I've
built, installed various OS's and networked hundreds (probably
thousands) of computers. I don't see a big difference except in
software availability (pc wins) between the two tools. If it works
for you great.

actually, neither wins. there are pc-only titles and mac-only titles.
most stuff runs on either one. it all depends what you need to do.

By "software availability" I means titles for the OS. Try any store
and see what I mean. Several rows of PC software and maybe a row or
two of mac software.

who buys software in stores? these days, software distribution is
predominantly on line.

There is no doubt that there are more apps for PCs.

that may be true but what matters are specific titles. having 20 photo
editing apps is meaningless if they all don't do what you need and the
one that does is on a different platform.

some people buy macs *just* for final cut pro or aperture, for example,
because there is no equivalent on a pc. similarly, there are apps that
only exist on a pc (however, those can run on a mac). like i said, it
all depends what you need to do.

As usual, Ken goes for the divisive issue of Ford/chevy,
nikon/leica/canon, and mac/pc. Probably a good idea to get those Mac
people whipped into a frenzy while computer people roll their eyes at
his ignorance.

you do realize that by ken's own admission, he makes up stuff and says
that his site is to be taken as a joke, just like the onion, right?

He might want to use emoticons because it doesn't come across that
way. He does excellent reviews except the stuff he's ignorant
on(mac/pc).

his reviews are not what i would consider excellent. i remember (but
did not bookmark) that he never heard of an slr with two mirrors. i
guess he's been in a cave for 20+ years. he also likes to write lengthy
reviews of stuff he's handled for only a few minutes at a trade show.

I do enjoy his reviews of gear and always check his site
before I buy.

check other sites as well. it's never a good idea to rely on only one
reviewer, no matter who it is.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:53:40 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Me" wrote in message ...
Ken's really on form today.

"As an historical note, Leica has been making 35mm cameras and lenses since the 1920s.

Nikon never made cameras until the late 1940s, or after after World War II. Prior to and during WWII,
Nikon instead specialized in making instruments for mass destruction: long-range rangefinders for
artillery, military binoculars, especially large ones used on ships, and aircraft bombsights. Nikon's
instruments were instrumental in Japan's terrorist attacks against America at Pearl Harbor
Which ones - they didn't use artillery, didn't sail closer than 200 miles and you hardly need a precision
sight to dive bomb something as large as a battleship in broad daylight!
Bombing ships, regardless of size, was never easy, bomb sight or not.
In fact, the US Navy maintained that it could not be
done in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. They left
the ships in the harbor unprotected from aerial
torpedoes, and as a result the Japanese attack was
extremely successful.

The Royal Navy knew better and graphically demonstrated what could be
done by an attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto. The Japanese
learned from this. The US Navy obviously did not.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

I say again: "Bombing ships, regardless of size, was never easy, bomb
sight or not."

nospam wrote:

that may be true but what matters are specific titles. having 20 photo
editing apps is meaningless if they all don't do what you need and the
one that does is on a different platform.

There are no good GPS automobile nav apps at all for the Mac.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:53:40 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Me" wrote in message ...
Ken's really on form today.

"As an historical note, Leica has been making 35mm cameras and lenses since the 1920s.

Nikon never made cameras until the late 1940s, or after after World War II. Prior to and during WWII,
Nikon instead specialized in making instruments for mass destruction: long-range rangefinders for
artillery, military binoculars, especially large ones used on ships, and aircraft bombsights. Nikon's
instruments were instrumental in Japan's terrorist attacks against America at Pearl Harbor
Which ones - they didn't use artillery, didn't sail closer than 200 miles and you hardly need a precision
sight to dive bomb something as large as a battleship in broad daylight!

Bombing ships, regardless of size, was never easy, bomb sight or not.

In fact, the US Navy maintained that it could not be
done in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. They left
the ships in the harbor unprotected from aerial
torpedoes, and as a result the Japanese attack was
extremely successful.

The Royal Navy knew better and graphically demonstrated what could be
done by an attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto. The Japanese
learned from this. The US Navy obviously did not.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

The significance to this is much the same as regards the
design of fighter aircraft and training of pilots. The
US simply did not accept that small Asian men with dark
skin (all of whom are also near sighted and must wear
wire frame glasses with thick lenses in order to see
past 1 meter) could accomplish anything complex.

In fact the British success at Taranto could not
directly be reproduced by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor
for at least two reasons. The British used a very
special slow biplane (the "Swordfish") to deliver
essentially standard torpedoes in relatively shallow
water (75 feet deep). The Japanese had to use standard
B5N "Kate" bombers at higher speeds to deliver very
special torpedoes in water half that deep (40 feet).

The British accomplished it primarily by the method of
delivery, while the Japanese had to modify the torpedo to
work in very shallow water. They essentially built a
wooden structure around the torpedo, providing a set of
"fins" that prevented it from diving too deep as it
entered the water.

The point of course is that the US was well aware that
the same methods used by the British were not available
to the Japanese. That was correct, but of course the
Japanese did engineer their own methods... a task the
US assumed they could not do on their own.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , DG
wrote:

Just took a quick read over at Ken's site. He's now on the PC vs. Mac
thread where he spews. He talks about upgrading a hard drive and how
easy it is on a Mac. 20 years ago I ran a Mac lab and a PC lab. I've
built, installed various OS's and networked hundreds (probably
thousands) of computers. I don't see a big difference except in
software availability (pc wins) between the two tools. If it works
for you great.

actually, neither wins. there are pc-only titles and mac-only titles.
most stuff runs on either one. it all depends what you need to do.

By "software availability" I means titles for the OS. Try any store
and see what I mean. Several rows of PC software and maybe a row or
two of mac software.

who buys software in stores? these days, software distribution is
predominantly on line.

I rarely buy software. I use either free stuff or write it myself.

then why does a store selling a lot of pc software matter? there's also
plenty of free stuff for macs, including a ****load of open source unix
apps.

There is no doubt that there are more apps for PCs.

that may be true but what matters are specific titles. having 20 photo
editing apps is meaningless if they all don't do what you need and the
one that does is on a different platform.

But the one that does the thing you need at the time is a real
blessing.

right. which is why it all depends what you need to do.

some people buy macs *just* for final cut pro or aperture, for example,
because there is no equivalent on a pc. similarly, there are apps that
only exist on a pc (however, those can run on a mac). like i said, it
all depends what you need to do.

I can run mac stuff on a PC but why would I want to?

not without a lot of hassle you can't.

I can do
whatever I need in photoshop (which I rarely use).

photoshop runs on either platform.

He might want to use emoticons because it doesn't come across that
way. He does excellent reviews except the stuff he's ignorant
on(mac/pc).

his reviews are not what i would consider excellent. i remember (but
did not bookmark) that he never heard of an slr with two mirrors. i
guess he's been in a cave for 20+ years. he also likes to write lengthy
reviews of stuff he's handled for only a few minutes at a trade show.

He does disclose that he's just handled a product. I do enjoy most of
his reviews.

there's nothing wrong with enjoying it but his 'reviews' are frequently
full of errors, many of them deliberate by his own admission.

i don't have time for that nonsense. there are far more reputable sites
that don't play games with the readers.

I do enjoy his reviews of gear and always check his site
before I buy.

check other sites as well. it's never a good idea to rely on only one
reviewer, no matter who it is.

Of course... Talking to other photographers also helps immensely...

yep.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 11:36 , DG wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 9/16/09 11:06 , DG wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

I dropped a fresh 1.5TB into my Mac and it found and formatted
the drive in a few minutes.

The primary difference between Windows and Mac, in this process,
is, the tools for adding, switching, modifying a drive are all
built-in to the O/S on a Mac. Under most Windows systems they
require third party, and often proprietary, software.


No.

Right click my computer Manage Storage... etc.

No third party software required.


I did say 'most.'


Maybe I'm ignorant but which MSFT OS requires third party software to
format a hard drive?



Ah..I see the confusion. I wasn't referring to simple formatting, as
much as I was about cloning a drive for replacement or transferring
contents to a new drive.

You can format a drive from the early DOS days without additional
software.

But if you want to transfer contents to a new drive, add, delete or
modify a partition, you need a third party application under Windows,
whereas the Mac O/S has the utiltities for this built in.

Windows|Control Panel|Administrative Tools|Computer Management|Disk
Management
Those utilities are built in to Windows since XP (IIRC), with a
reasonably straight-forward GUI. I suppose there aren't options to
format (or work on) other than MS filesystems FAT/FAT32/NTFS, but you
can add/delete/shrink/extend and format partitions. I think the tools
are still there even with "basic" versions of the OS.
So for "normal" use, what you say hasn't applied for quite a long time.

The processes are reasonably close to being the same, and take the
same amount of time depending on machine parameters.