suggestions on upgrading to a new pc

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:27:52 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , Fotoguy
writes
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:57:39 +0100, Chris H wrote:

[snip]
I see you have not tried Linux recently and have no idea what is
available.

Photoshop, Lightroom and aperture run on linux? As neither Adobe and
Apple produce Linux versions the answer is "no"

You can run Windows apps under Linux or OSX by using Crossover (http://
www.codeweavers.com/products/). It's not an emulator or a virtual
machine. So, you don't need Windows. It works by translating Windows
system calls to the equivalent Linux (or Mac) ones, and depending on the
app, the app runs as well as it would under Windows. Sometimes, a
little better. But not always.

SO you run Linux so you can run fake windows to run windows apps.....

Essentially, yes.

It cant run as well as you are introducing another layer.

Seems contrary to common sense, but I've noticed it myself. The apps
seem more responsive--snappier--under Crossover-Linux (When they do run.
They don't all do.) than the same app running under Windows (2000 & XP,
the one's I have) on the same machine. The way it was explained to me
(by a person who's been a programmer and computer engineer for 40 years)
is that Linux is a leaner, more efficient, more stable OS than Windows,
and thus "things" happen faster under Linux than Windows. I've even read
a few articles where tests were done to verify the claim, but that's been
a few years ago.


--
Fotoguy
BestInClass.com
"Personalized digital camera recommendations"
http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

There are *many* filesystems in common use that do not
suffer problems with fragmentation.

If you weren't a dishonest idiot you wouldn't be moving the goalposts
and trying to change the subject from being subject to fragmentation
to it being a problem.

Are you daft?

I know of a few where fragmentation isn't an issue. MacOS is one such
because it continually defragments files. There are even file systems
where fragmatation doesn't happen, but they're not commonly used.

Virtually every filesystem used by unix OS's fits the
bill. I have *never* fragmented a filesystem on a unix
system.

Not all OS's are subject to virus infections. Try to
find a virus that will infect Linux or one of the BSD
OS's without being manually installed by the root user.

Bliss. 12 years ago.

Idiot.

"remains chiefly a research curiosity" is the way the Wikipedia
page for Bliss describes it. Like I said, "without being manually
installed".

Your claims are jokes and your insults are self descriptive.

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

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:10:36 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , Fotoguy
wrote:

Photoshop, Lightroom and aperture run on linux? As neither Adobe and
Apple produce Linux versions the answer is "no"

You can run Windows apps under Linux or OSX by using Crossover (http://
www.codeweavers.com/products/).

you can run *some* windows apps. you *can't* run stuff like photoshop
cs4 and you certainly can't run aperture since it's not a windows app at
all.

Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or
CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes.

Right, I can't run Aperture with or without Crossover on Linux. But
neither can you under Windows. What's your point?

Crossover is not and was never intended as a replacement for Windows.
Its niche are those Linux (and now Mac) users who on occasion need to run
a particular Windows app, and, for whatever reason(s), have no desire to
run Windows.

it translates to linux, but it doesn't translate anything to mac api
calls, and why would it since photoshop, lightroom and aperture already
run natively on a mac.

Crossover Mac is designed to run Windows apps on a Mac. If that app
already exist natively for the Mac, yes, there is no need for Crossover,
but if that app doesn't, then you can. Evidently, there must be enough
of a need, otherwise, Crossover Mac wouldn't exist.

and depending on the
app, the app runs as well as it would under Windows. Sometimes, a
little better. But not always.

and sometimes a lot worse, if it runs at all.

If it's "worse," it usually won't run at all.


--
Fotoguy
BestInClass.com
"Personalized digital camera recommendations"
http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras

In article , Fotoguy
wrote:

Photoshop, Lightroom and aperture run on linux? As neither Adobe and
Apple produce Linux versions the answer is "no"

You can run Windows apps under Linux or OSX by using Crossover (http://
www.codeweavers.com/products/).

you can run *some* windows apps. you *can't* run stuff like photoshop
cs4 and you certainly can't run aperture since it's not a windows app at
all.

Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or
CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes.

but not perfectly.

Right, I can't run Aperture with or without Crossover on Linux. But
neither can you under Windows. What's your point?

if you want to run any of those apps, linux is not a viable option.

Crossover is not and was never intended as a replacement for Windows.
Its niche are those Linux (and now Mac) users who on occasion need to run
a particular Windows app, and, for whatever reason(s), have no desire to
run Windows.

right, and for a lot of apps it works fine. photoshop ain't one of them
unless you consider (very) old versions to be acceptable.

it translates to linux, but it doesn't translate anything to mac api
calls, and why would it since photoshop, lightroom and aperture already
run natively on a mac.

Crossover Mac is designed to run Windows apps on a Mac. If that app
already exist natively for the Mac, yes, there is no need for Crossover,
but if that app doesn't, then you can. Evidently, there must be enough
of a need, otherwise, Crossover Mac wouldn't exist.

crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api
calls.

and depending on the
app, the app runs as well as it would under Windows. Sometimes, a
little better. But not always.

and sometimes a lot worse, if it runs at all.

If it's "worse," it usually won't run at all.

actually not running at all is better because you won't waste your time
trying to do stuff with an app that only partially works. you could
potentially spend a lot of time working on something and find out a
certain feature doesn't do the right thing, or it crashes and you lose
all your work. if it didn't run at all, you'd find another solution
that did work and not get burned.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

Which does not refer to all files systems, idiot.

There are *many* filesystems in common use that do not
suffer problems with fragmentation.

Name some. Keep in mind that the three most common filesystems are
MacOS HFS+, NTFS, and DOS.

If you weren't a dishonest idiot you wouldn't be moving the goalposts
and trying to change the subject from being subject to fragmentation
to it being a problem.

Are you daft?

Are you a moron?

I know of a few where fragmentation isn't an issue. MacOS is one such
because it continually defragments files. There are even file systems
where fragmatation doesn't happen, but they're not commonly used.

Virtually every filesystem used by unix OS's fits the
bill.

Don't start lying to me.

I have *never* fragmented a filesystem on a unix
system.

I've never walked on the moon.

Not all OS's are subject to virus infections. Try to
find a virus that will infect Linux or one of the BSD
OS's without being manually installed by the root user.

Bliss. 12 years ago.

Idiot.

"remains chiefly a research curiosity" is the way the Wikipedia
page for Bliss describes it.

Because it was the first virus.

Like I said, "without being manually
installed".

That was the FIRST one, idiot. There have been others since then.

--
Ray Fischer

It's Really Ray Fisher - Right? wrote:

Yes. Totally unnoticeable by anyone--whose unaided vision is less than
20/80 in both eyes. If they only knew how many of their images have had
their hard-bought pixel resolution destroyed more than 50% when using
Photoshop's last-century interpolation methods they'd all run and hide in
shame. People spending $5000 on camera gear only to have their expensive
favorite editor reduce the pixel detail to 50% of the original resolution
all these years; with one simple resize, rotation, perspective, or lens
geometry correction. Their images reduced to $50 camera quality with the
click of one editor option.

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

Buy $5000 of camera gear and throw the images through a $700 editor that
reduces their expensive resolution to that of a $50 camera. Reeeeeal smart.


You reference a web article that was published in 1999. 1999 version of
photoshop would be 5.5 while the latest version is 11.0, albeit a very
recent release.

I would submit that the information you submit as proof is rather
out-dated an no longer valid.

--
Len

Posts from Google Groups are filtered by the country of origin.
Posts from Name-shifter are filtered regardless of account.
Reply's to Name-shifter are filtered as well.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:05:05 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:


I just plain am not seeing any huge price differential between bare
machines and equivalent machines bundled with Windows.

If you go into PC-world etc the cost is for "The Computer" and
"all" computers come with Windows "as Standard"

I don't go into PC-world etc - we don't have one in town. There are
several places locally where I can indeed purchase a computer with
Linux or with no OS at all. DELL will do that, too. I also note that
the ones WITHOUT ms cost less.

For comparable specification? Show us.

One example: bought an asus eeepc from BestBuy for the wife for
Christmas. It came with Linux and it was in the neighborhood of
$50-$100 less than the equivalent one with MS xp (of course, it was
totally incapable of running vista) - sorry, I don't recall the exact
difference at this point in time.

You're sure it was for identical hardware?

No, it would not have been. When the eeepc first came out, it ran only
Linux, had 128mb RAM, a 2GB SSD, and cost $100 IIRC. They had other
models up to $200 with more RAM and bigger SSDs, but still with Linux.
After MS threw a hissy fit about not having a Windows version, months
later, they came out with the Windows XP version, which was not a full
version of XP, but a scaled down one. The XP model came with 512MB RAM
and an 8GB SSD, and cost $250. Or was it $299? Can't recall.


--
Fotoguy
BestInClass.com
"Personalized digital camera recommendations"
http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

Which does not refer to all files systems, idiot.

Wake up. My set (all modern unix filesystems) is a
superset of your "in common use" set.

No unix filesystems in common use require defragmentation.

There are *many* filesystems in common use that do not
suffer problems with fragmentation.

Name some. Keep in mind that the three most common filesystems are
MacOS HFS+, NTFS, and DOS.

Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs.

If you weren't a dishonest idiot you wouldn't be moving the goalposts
and trying to change the subject from being subject to fragmentation
to it being a problem.

Are you daft?

Are you a moron?

I know of a few where fragmentation isn't an issue. MacOS is one such
because it continually defragments files. There are even file systems
where fragmatation doesn't happen, but they're not commonly used.

Virtually every filesystem used by unix OS's fits the
bill.

Don't start lying to me.

I have *never* fragmented a filesystem on a unix
system.

I've never walked on the moon.

Not all OS's are subject to virus infections. Try to
find a virus that will infect Linux or one of the BSD
OS's without being manually installed by the root user.

Bliss. 12 years ago.

Idiot.

"remains chiefly a research curiosity" is the way the Wikipedia
page for Bliss describes it.

Because it was the first virus.

It's a laboratory experiment, not a threat to Linux.

Like I said, "without being manually
installed".

That was the FIRST one, idiot. There have been others since then.

And *every* one of them is a lab experiment that does not
actually propagate in the real world. In other words they
demonstrate some *part* of how a virus works, but cannot and
do not function as a virus.

BTW, you self descriptions, so thinly disguised as insults,
are really good.

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

Which does not refer to all files systems, idiot.

Wake up.

Stop being a stupid ass.

My set (all modern unix filesystems) is a
superset of your "in common use" set.

No, moron, it isn't.

There are *many* filesystems in common use that do not
suffer problems with fragmentation.

Name some. Keep in mind that the three most common filesystems are
MacOS HFS+, NTFS, and DOS.

Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs.

All of which can suffer from file fragmentation.

Not all OS's are subject to virus infections. Try to
find a virus that will infect Linux or one of the BSD
OS's without being manually installed by the root user.

Bliss. 12 years ago.

Idiot.

"remains chiefly a research curiosity" is the way the Wikipedia
page for Bliss describes it.

Because it was the first virus.

It's a laboratory experiment, not a threat to Linux.

You're an idiotcultist and not credible,

--
Ray Fischer

Bob Larter wrote:
Giftzwerg wrote:
In article , says...

The guy *already uses CS4 and Lightroom*; he's already chosen the two
flat-out best photo-editing tools out there. That he throw that
investment in time, money, and effort out the window just to experience
the brilliance of Linux is so over-the-top insane that anyone who
suggests it should have his bones broken with an iron rod.
The guy also has a painfully slow computer that shouldn't be

No. Wrong. He has an over one year old PC that he's looking to
upgrade:

"machine is slowing a bit around 1 1/2 yr old looking to upgrade to a
new one"

Yet another example of how Windows boxes get sluggish if they're not
constantly maintained.

Another example of cult propaganda from someone who doesn't know
Windows.

--
Ray Fischer