What makes a mac better?

In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote:

When I picked up my version of Adobe Elements, there was no equivalent mac
version. At that time, Adobe was about 2 versions behind in mac-based
Elements,

they skipped version 5 & 7 for mac for some reason, so at *most* it was
one version behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_Elements

every other release was for both platforms and at the same time. it's a
cross platform app from the same codebase.

i'm also curious why you would have even looked at whether there was a
mac version, given that you have no intention of getting a mac.

and there was talk that Adobe might be discontinuing support for
Elements on macs altogether.

the only such talk would have been from ignorant people.

roughly half of adobe's revenue comes from macs. why would adobe
discontinue support of half of their revenue base??

I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
systems, but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
superiority are all that accurate.

look at consumer satisfaction reports, reliability reports, etc. macs
are consistently on top.

Given that mac lovers tend to be more zealous than those in the PC family,
I'd chalk up longer lived apples to increased tlc by owners.

PCs get chucked around pretty good by everybody from the family kids to
low-level employees who dream of better jobs instead of attention to detail.

nonsense. macs don't get any more care than anything else. some users
are gentle with their stuff and others are not.

But, increased security / (possibly) durability have very little to do with
great graphics...

it does when you have to keep dealing with malware threats, removing it
if you get it, etc.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making
them underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not
at the processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact
someone sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed
16M colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only
capable of 260 thousand or so.

both mac and windows laptops use 6 bit displays. it's nothing unique to
apple. many windows laptops also use lower quality tn displays to cut
costs whereas macs don't.

laptops have a power constraint and most people don't do colour
critical work on a laptop, so it's a fair tradeoff. you can always plug
in an external display, which many people do.

that said, the macbook pro with retina display has an 8 bit ips
display. it's as good as anything you can get on your desk outside of
something like eizo ($$), and actually much better due to its insanely
high resolution.

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

AFAIK Elements is identical in function on both platforms. I may be
wrong. ( I use CS5).

just about all adobe software is cross platform, not just elements.

In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote:

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

more nonsense.

adobe's products are cross platform. it's the same codebase for both.
any work that goes into one goes into the other automatically.

by the way, photoshop began on a mac, as did lightroom, and even
microsoft excel was mac only initially. they were later ported to
windows.

In article , ray
wrote:

IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

what's unsurpassed about linux is the lack of useful software.

In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote:

Now for some legal bull****. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group
. From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
unix is, they would agree with me that it's a description of the function of
a family of operating systems, but they would also add ``that we have
certified to be UNIX''. So legally, it's not a UNIX unless The Open Group
certifies it as a UNIX. So a lot of those operating systems I listed as
unices are not UNIXes. It's a thoroughly sad case of legalities getting in
the way of simplicity & sanity.

it's legally unix.

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3591.htm

On 2012.08.26 13:14 , Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/c...ates/1190p.pdf

(there are also certificates for prior OS X releases back through Leopard).

Note the signature on that document. I mean what I sez.


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 8/26/2012 1:57 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making
them underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not
at the processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact
someone sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed
16M colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only
capable of 260 thousand or so.

both mac and windows laptops use 6 bit displays. it's nothing unique to
apple. many windows laptops also use lower quality tn displays to cut
costs whereas macs don't.

laptops have a power constraint and most people don't do colour
critical work on a laptop, so it's a fair tradeoff. you can always plug
in an external display, which many people do.

that said, the macbook pro with retina display has an 8 bit ips
display. it's as good as anything you can get on your desk outside of
something like eizo ($$), and actually much better due to its insanely
high resolution.

Do you actually work with any post processing program, or do you just
bull**** using theoretical specs.


--
Peter

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.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 8/26/12 10:43 AM, in article
, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...


snip

Dudley, are you trolling for a flame war?!?

bows head

Tsk-tsk...

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 8/26/12 10:43 AM, in article
, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...


snip

Dudley, are you trolling for a flame war?!?

bows head

Tsk-tsk...


Only with nospam ...