Computer

In article <UhVHh.10464$tD2.9120@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
Irby <irbyb@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks

PCs work better in Enterprise environments, i.e large companies, where
IT departments manage company computer assest for the ease of the
administration rather than for the ease of the end user.

PCs are promulgated by PC Wizards whose ego is stroked by the fact that
they know all the Special Ways to get PCs to work properly. So when an
unknowing soul asks about "computers", that person gets sent to a
Wizard. And the Wizard has them buy a PC. Some become enamered with
learning the secrets, and these become Acolytes to the cult. Wizards
to be.

PCs also make the better game machines. So if you want a fancy XBOX,
the PC is for you. It's a better toy.

Mac users just want to accomplish something and need a reliable tool
that is consistant and powerful to use. It is about the work, not the
device. In fact, it would be easier to bow to the tide and just use a
PC. A lot of Mac users have used both. Recall, Enterprises are
PC-festooned. But these are folks that have no interest in becoming
Wizards. They don't want to have learn about computers any more than
they want to learn to be auto mechanics just to drive. They just want
the best tool. And having used both, they appreciate the benefits of
better design, and so they chose the Mac.

Besides, now that Macs run Windows, too, Mac users can have it both
ways. With a Mac, they get a choice. With a PC, they are locked in.

Ockham's Razor wrote:

>> Most people are simply sheep and believe everything they see and
>> read on TV or the Internet. Macs are nothing more than a novelty
>> box. If you want high performance and reliability you will select
>> the PC platform. Most graphics professionals chose the Intel Xeon
>> for their processor of choice. They are more apt to be using a dual
>> Xeon system. Even Mac caved in and all their "performance" systems
>> are Intel based. And you guessed it they use Xeons. Why buy a copy
>> of the best when you can own the best, a PC.
>
> Apple went to the intel chip for two reasons, Motorola was not making
> any progress with advanced chips and the intel chips run cooler.

Well, that's just a politically correct way of saying Intel is better. It's
amazing how the Mac zealots always bashed Intel and now they are eating crow
and enjoying it.

> A secondary thing may be that too many users only recognize the intel
> brand.

No, they just know Intel was always better.






Rita

In article <12v19dvrf4a5b28@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>
> >> Most people are simply sheep and believe everything they see and
> >> read on TV or the Internet. Macs are nothing more than a novelty
> >> box. If you want high performance and reliability you will select
> >> the PC platform. Most graphics professionals chose the Intel Xeon
> >> for their processor of choice. They are more apt to be using a dual
> >> Xeon system. Even Mac caved in and all their "performance" systems
> >> are Intel based. And you guessed it they use Xeons. Why buy a copy
> >> of the best when you can own the best, a PC.
> >
> > Apple went to the intel chip for two reasons, Motorola was not making
> > any progress with advanced chips and the intel chips run cooler.
>
> Well, that's just a politically correct way of saying Intel is better. It's
> amazing how the Mac zealots always bashed Intel and now they are eating crow
> and enjoying it.

Enjoying it???? Eating crow???? Not likely.

Apple made a corporate business decision to start using a cooler running
chip. They wanted it primarily for their lap tops but when the price
was right put it in all their machines (a corporate decision by Intel to
give Apple a great deal). anything that helps a modern desk top
computer and specifically a lap top run cooler is an advantage both in
the number of cooling fans necessary and then the size of the machine or
the goodies that can be added inside the box.

The Intel chips give Apple an additional advantage in their historically
superior build. The combination of Apple quality, a superior OS and lack
of any virus, spyware or malware dangers make Apple the best possible
choice for any computer user.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

On Mar 8, 6:21 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Most people are simply sheep and believe everything they see and read on TV
> or the Internet. Macs are nothing more than a novelty box. If you want
> high performance and reliability you will select the PC platform.


Unless you came up in recording studios, where the only PCs you saw
were in the office and the Macs were doing the audio. PCs were
running the "novelty" programs (and office billing) and Macs were
doing the pro work. The reasons a musician older than 30 would have
a Mac rig today is because they made their living for years when there
simply practically no Windows professional music software for decades
and then practically no pro Windows digital audio software. You
couldn't do it if you wanted to. And if you cobbled together a PC
system you'd get conflicts up the wazoo with every peripheral you
plugged in, with modems fighting with midi interfaces. Macs? I ran
a studio on a Mac Plus when the Windows PC couldn't do it, and that
never changed until about 2000, when it started evening out.

I understand why Macs have no advantage over PCs for graphics, but I
can just do it on my Macs and not have to go out and get a Windows box
just for that.


Glad to hear Windows is working better now, though : )

Ockham's Razor wrote:

>> Well, that's just a politically correct way of saying Intel is
>> better. It's amazing how the Mac zealots always bashed Intel and
>> now they are eating crow and enjoying it.
>
> Enjoying it???? Eating crow???? Not likely.

Absolutely! I get a kick every time I read or hear how great the new Duo
Core or the dual Xeon Macs are. Things ironically have a way of coming full
circle and the PC users have the last laugh since they were right all along.

> Apple made a corporate business decision to start using a cooler
> running chip. They wanted it primarily for their lap tops but when
> the price was right put it in all their machines (a corporate
> decision by Intel to give Apple a great deal). anything that helps a
> modern desk top computer and specifically a lap top run cooler is an
> advantage both in the number of cooling fans necessary and then the
> size of the machine or the goodies that can be added inside the box.

Apple made a decision of going Intel because they traditionally had a poor
product that was driving them into bankruptcy. If it weren't for Intel and
the iPod, Apple would be a distant memory.

> The Intel chips give Apple an additional advantage in their
> historically superior build. The combination of Apple quality, a
> superior OS and lack of any virus, spyware or malware dangers make
> Apple the best possible choice for any computer user.

Right! You're a victim of cult brainwashing. Windows XP is the most secure
and robust OS on the market. Never had Spyware or virus since XP is
bulletproof.






Rita

rboy505@yahoo.com wrote:

> Unless you came up in recording studios, where the only PCs you saw
> were in the office and the Macs were doing the audio. PCs were
> running the "novelty" programs (and office billing) and Macs were
> doing the pro work. The reasons a musician older than 30 would have
> a Mac rig today is because they made their living for years when there
> simply practically no Windows professional music software for decades
> and then practically no pro Windows digital audio software. You
> couldn't do it if you wanted to. And if you cobbled together a PC
> system you'd get conflicts up the wazoo with every peripheral you
> plugged in, with modems fighting with midi interfaces. Macs? I ran
> a studio on a Mac Plus when the Windows PC couldn't do it, and that
> never changed until about 2000, when it started evening out.

Lot of what you say is the fault of Mac users buying substandard peripherals
and having low expectations. People that buy quality peripherals for PC
never have problems. Then again, they demand and use better quality
hardware.

> I understand why Macs have no advantage over PCs for graphics, but I
> can just do it on my Macs and not have to go out and get a Windows box
> just for that.

They never had an advantage. The fools that bought them were forced to
upgrade hardware when the OS needed upgrading.

> Glad to hear Windows is working better now, though : )

I never knew a time when Windows didn't work kick ass good.







Rita

In article <12v1gcmbg7qhrd1@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> I never knew a time when Windows didn't work kick ass good.

What color is the sky on your planet?

In article <UhVHh.10464$tD2.9120@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
"Irby" <irbyb@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks

Stop by a computer store such as CompUSA where both Macs and PCs are
sold and try one of each out for yourself. I use a Mac primarily, but I
use Windows a lot too.

For me, the answer about Macs is simple: they just work.

In article <UhVHh.10464$tD2.9120@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
Irby <irbyb@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks

Because Windows sucks?

In article <k7XHh.27721$fa.3888@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Roy G
<roy.gibson1@REMOVE.tesco.net> wrote:

> This just demonstrates the percentage of Mac users to PC users. There are
> so few Macs that the Virus / Malware writers don't bother producing a Mac
> version.

Oh please! It's not about market share. It's about OS design. With OS
X, the default user is not an admin with root access. Jeez...get a
clue.