Computer

In article <12v1gcls0juf5d0@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> 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 facts contradict you. Apple was among the most profitable computer
companies long before the first iPod hit store shelves. Even before the
advent of Intel-based Macs, while competitors such as Dell and HP were
losing money, Apple was bring in profits hand-over-fist.

All one has to do is look at the financial history of Apple and its
competitors to see that you know nothing of what you speak.

> > 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.

You have got to be kidding. You really are clueless.

In article <12v1gcls0juf5d0@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> 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.

Light up another joint, honey.

On Mar 8, 9:07 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> 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.
>


Sorry, no. I knew what I was buying. No substandard peripherals
ever. If you wanted the conflicts to be ironed out by the time you
needed it to work, you weren't buying for a PC.

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

> "Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:080320071105436387%not@aol.com...
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> > I work supporting Macs in the education, graphics, and publishing
> > arenas. At one time, Apple was almost literally the only way to get
> > things done in these markets. This has diminished; Windows has gotten
> > much better. To the extent that if someone is a Windows expert user I
> > wouldn't necessarily recommend a change.
> >
> > That said, there are still advantages in color management, file
> > handling, user interface, and stability. Some excellent graphics
> > software is exclusively for, or better on, the Mac.
> >
> > Finally, the nearly complete freedom from malware is a big plus as
> > well. I recently converted a college newspaper to Mac because they were
> > literally drowning in viruses; they had IT there every single week to
> > disinfect their PC's. Since they got Macs, not a single infection. And
> > that's without any antivirus software at all.
>
> 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.

Facts say otherwise. There are fewer Linux desktops, for example, yet
plenty of rootkits and other malware for Linux. The Mac remains free of
malware because it is based on a Unix kernel that is well known for
being designed from the ground up with security in mind. For example, it
is damned near impossible for a Mac user to inadvertently install a
program simply by downloading it via email without knowing about it.

Macs see fewer security issues for the simple reason that Mac OS X is
designed from the ground up to be a secure OS.

In article <080320071840393586%rag@nospam.techline.com>, Randall
Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> 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.

Oh, PLEASE! (as much as I agree with you), let's not start Yet Another
Long And Argumentative Thread about Mac vs. PC security which will,
inevitably, change no one's mind at all from their starting postition
[yes, I know that this is what usenet is all about, but really, we just
had YALAAT on this, here in a _photography_ group, not more than a
month ago].

I love Macs. I hate PCs. [but have to use both for various and sundry
reasons]

But I'm willing to let others who have differing opinions believe (and
use) what they choose to without feeling the need to "convert" any of
them. Please, can't we all just do that and just get back to watching
the standard, unending YALAAT about Canons vs. Nikons instead, seeing
as how this IS a _photography_ group?

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Here's the difference between a Mac and a PC. A couple of years ago I
had to help a friend install a new firewire card. He used firewire to
download from his video camera and his Mac and when he added a new
external hard drive he needed the new card because you can't download
from the firewire and upload to the firewire as the same time.

When we first discover the problem, my first thought (being a PC
person) was "stupid operating system error" because PC people blame
the operating system for everything. My friend was a Mac zeolot so he
immediately thought "stupid hardward" because Mac users blame the
operating system for nothing.

Yes, Mac is more stable and simplier to use, but that comes with a
price. With PCs you have a HUGE array of gadgets you can install, all
with unique drivers and resource and driver conflicts happen all of
the time. That's why it crashes and why Macs don't. Macs have a MUCH
smaller array of gadgets to choose from but all (okay "most" are
preloaded into the operating system and Apple has checked them all
out. That avoids problems but also limits you.

Like everything in life, there is no clear answer.


On Mar 8, 9:43 am, "Irby" <i...@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

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-B9BD02.21360308032007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> 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.

There you have it:
- If you just want to work with a computer, do not want to know how the
computer works, and are satisfied with the limited array of (excellent!)
hard/software available, then choose a Mac (Which is, by the way, also a
Personal Computer).
- If you want to be able to choose from the entire world of hard and
software and don't mind you have to tinker around with settings and
occasional conflicts, AND have the knowledge to do so, choose a Windows
machine.

The problem with Windows and its hard/software vendors is that everyone who
has one thinks he can do ANYTHING with it and it will always work OOTB. This
is not true. You just need some background knowledge to run it safe and
reliable.
With a Mac, you don't. There is far less hard/software to choose from and it
is, in general, designed better (and therefore more expensive, too), but
normally, it will just work.

JohanE

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:09:04 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:

>> Jeez...get a clue.
> . . .
>
> But I'm willing to let others who have differing opinions believe (and
> use) what they choose to without feeling the need to "convert" any of
> them. Please, can't we all just do that and just get back to watching
> the standard, unending YALAAT about Canons vs. Nikons instead, seeing
> as how this IS a _photography_ group?

Please. Everyone knows that Mac fanatics are just as unreasonable
as Atari and Commodore fanboys. You're NOT helping.






:) Besides, most of us take Randall's diatribes in stride by now.
<g>

In article <C21622B1.1C05B%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A.F.I. In woman's clothing and "jewish": Are you just too stupid to see a
> TROLL?

It goes right over their heads that it is a troll even though it such a
blatant one.

--
Charles

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:38:38 -0700
ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:43:00 +0000, Irby 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
>
> Probably because MACs 'just work'. Most of them are not technically
> proficient and don't have the time to deal with MS malware, BSODs,
> defragging, . . . Basically some of the same reasons I use Linux as
> opposed to MS.
>
Just common sense really.

--
Neil
Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.