OT: Mac Blat
>> how hard it is to use a Mac > > This is a classic oxymoron! Cotty, Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface that Gate's lawyers somehow weaseled him out of paying for, the ease of use of _all_ computers is directly related to the ease of use of Macs. Even though Windows is still inferior in every way. In virtually every creative field, there are true innovators, then there are the often rapacious, often more energetic and less principled imitators that follow on their heels and opportunistically appropriate the market. Windows PCs are second-rate consumer products. The Microsoft OS is third-rate. The real personal computers are Macs. Macs are superior products. They work better, they are more elegant, they are more pleasant to work with, they're designed better. The OS is much more stable and elegant and the interface is far better. Even as objects they are much more aesthetically pleasing to have in the home. Now that so many outside companies are writing software for them and Apple is no longer controlling the compatibility standards, I'm finally experiencing crashes on my Mac. But I worked with a Mac Quadra for _six years_ at the magazine, nine hours a day, five days a week, and guess how many crashes or freezes I ever experienced? None. Zero. It never happened. No downtime, ever, period, except one time when the starter battery on the motherboard ran dry. Try that with a PC. As soon as I go 100% OSX native, I hope to reclaim that. I understand that many people have to use PCs because their work demands it, their computers are provided by their employers or their workplaces are standardized on PCs, they need certain software that is only available for PCs, or simply because they've always used PCs and it's difficult to switch platforms. There are lots of good reasons for being stuck with PCs. But "stuck" is the word. To me, PCs are just appliances. They betray poor taste and a lack of aesthetic sense in their makers, if not their owners. They're crass. I thank my lucky stars I started with Macs and I will never switch unless I am absolutely forced to do so, and then I'll wait until the absolute last possible moment. --Mike P.S. My "Sunday Morning Photographer" column two weeks from now is called "The Best of 2002," in which I name a bunch of products as the best of the year and discuss them--best photography book, best digital camera, best enlarger, that sort of thing. Can you guess what won "Best Digital Photography Computer Workstation"? I'll give you a hint--it's not a dang PC.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
In a message dated 1/11/2003 3:27:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It still doesn't change the fact that the founders of Apple saw, what > was to become the Mac's interface, first at Xerox PARC. > Bill Gates has > nothing to do with it. > > BR Not disputing that. Disputing that "everything is derivative." But I was mainly reponding to the "Yada, yada." Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: OT: Mac Blat
"Ryan K. Brooks" wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/11/2003 2:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Not quite, because Bill Gates is the ultimate rip-off artist. And M$ is re-known >for getting away with it. > > > > IIRC the guy that "invented" Dos got a minimal flat fee from Gates and never saw >any other profit. > > Access is a rip-off of Paradox; Excel is a rip-off of Lotus; the list goes on and >on. > > > Actually, I know that guy personally. And he did just fine, IMHO. Which guy? The one that invented the d.o.s., or Bill Gates? > But I agree with the rest of your post. > > R keith whaley
Re: OT: Mac Blat
It is in fact, just as bad, just as rehashed and just as irrelevant to photography (no matter how they are used). BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, I fear that this could be just as bad as the gun thread.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Keith Whaley wrote: "Ryan K. Brooks" wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/11/2003 2:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not quite, because Bill Gates is the ultimate rip-off artist. And M$ is re-known for getting away with it. IIRC the guy that "invented" Dos got a minimal flat fee from Gates and never saw any other profit. Access is a rip-off of Paradox; Excel is a rip-off of Lotus; the list goes on and on. Actually, I know that guy personally. And he did just fine, IMHO. Which guy? The one that invented the d.o.s., or Bill Gates? Tim Paterson. R
Re: OT: Mac Blat
In a message dated 1/11/2003 4:07:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Well Access is certainly no rip off of Paradox... Paradox > is simply the > dumbest relational DB I have ever had to use. > It well might be the rip off of something else. > > - > Bob Paradox was pretty good when the only other thing around for PCs (that was used much) was DBase. But sorry if you misread that re Access being a rip-off of Paradox -- I wasn't praising Access. Doe aka Marnie Hehehehehe.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
On 11 Jan 2003 at 13:34, Keith Whaley wrote: > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > On 11 Jan 2003 at 13:29, Mike Johnston wrote: > > > > > Macs are superior products. They work better, they are more elegant, they > > > are more pleasant to work with, they're designed better. > > > > Mike, you should get out more. > > He has. That's why he knows what he knows... I'd argue that anyone with such a narrow perspective has not had sufficient experience with both platforms or has not had the benefit of using a well designed and configured PC based computer. BTW computers are tools not Ikea furniture. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Mac Blat
>That Apple ripped off from Xerox PARC. Entirely true! Thanks Bruce. Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Apology: OT Mac Blat
Folks, I hereby duly apologise. I should know better but I was stupid enough to hit the send button before my brain engaged and prevented me. Please accept my humblest sorrow for initiating what must rank as a verbotten thread. For the record, I read: > how hard it is to use a Mac and for the record, I responded: >> This is a classic oxymoron! and for the record, I would just like to say that my intention was entirely honourable. I did not mean to denigrate anyone's choice of computer brand - I simply meant that Macs are not hard to use, end of story. Again, apologies. Tail between legs, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
RE: OT: Mac Blat
Mike - It's not that I don't respect your opinion, because I do. It's just, in this case, times have changed. Photoshop on a decently sized Intel machine under windows XP is virtually indistinguishable from that same program on a Mac. Many of the latest Photoshop books point this out in their equipment recommendations. Everyone has their own experience on which they must draw, but I'm an Apple bigot from way back, and it's time to admit that the Wintel boxes as just as good, if not better and significantly more powerful and less expensive. By the way, both Apple and Microsoft based their windows desktop on research done at Xerox PARC. I'm sure you must know this. Apple was just the first thief with a usable, marketable imitation. Apple sued Microsoft over the use of the Trash Can icon. That's why you know have a much more politically correct Recycle Bin on Windows. Now, as far as Photoshop is concerned, I also have an opinion on that. (Time to stir the pot.) To recommend Photoshop to a photographer getting into image processing is a disservice. That novice would be much better served by Picture Window Pro at one fifth the cost. Sure, there are at least 100 current titles on Photoshop. 99% of them are duplicates, and only add to the cost of the product. Picture Window Pro, however, was written for photographers in the first place, not graphic artists. The documentation and white papers Digital Light and Color's web site, and Normen Koren's web site, are sufficient to get most going at no additional cost to the program. Questions are answered promptly by the program's author on the DL-C web site. It's my opinion that most photographers will learn faster, progress much farther, and enjoy their work more with a program like Picture Window Pro. A very few of those may find it inadequate and desire to move on to something like Photoshop, but most will be quite satisfied. Some may even supplement it with a program like Photoshop Elements. By the way, I'm not saying Photoshop isn't worth the money, I'm just saying it's aimed at a different audience. Many photographers have adapted it to their needs quite well. It's just that all the stuff in it that will probably not be used by Photographers is what makes it cost $600, and hard to learn. I'm recommending that most people save the time and money and get right to the meat of what they want by using Picture Window Pro. OK, enough stirring the pot. See you later, gs - Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: "Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface" --
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Thank you, George... It needed to be said, and you did it. keith whaley George Sinos wrote: > > Mike - > > It's not that I don't respect your opinion, because I do. It's just, in > this case, times have changed. Photoshop on a decently sized Intel machine > under windows XP is virtually indistinguishable from that same program on a > Mac. Many of the latest Photoshop books point this out in their equipment > recommendations. > > Everyone has their own experience on which they must draw, but I'm an Apple > bigot from way back, and it's time to admit that the Wintel boxes as just > as good, if not better and significantly more powerful and less expensive. > > By the way, both Apple and Microsoft based their windows desktop on > research done at Xerox PARC. I'm sure you must know this. Apple was just > the first thief with a usable, marketable imitation. Apple sued Microsoft > over the use of the Trash Can icon. That's why you know have a much more > politically correct Recycle Bin on Windows. > > Now, as far as Photoshop is concerned, I also have an opinion on > that. (Time to stir the pot.) To recommend Photoshop to a photographer > getting into image processing is a disservice. That novice would be much > better served by Picture Window Pro at one fifth the cost. > > Sure, there are at least 100 current titles on Photoshop. 99% of them are > duplicates, and only add to the cost of the product. Picture Window Pro, > however, was written for photographers in the first place, not graphic > artists. The documentation and white papers Digital Light and Color's web > site, and Normen Koren's web site, are > sufficient to get most going at no additional cost to the > program. Questions are answered promptly by the program's author on the > DL-C web site. > > It's my opinion that most photographers will learn faster, progress much > farther, and enjoy their work more with a program like Picture Window > Pro. A very few of those may find it inadequate and desire to move on to > something like Photoshop, but most will be quite satisfied. Some may even > supplement it with a program like Photoshop Elements. > > By the way, I'm not saying Photoshop isn't worth the money, I'm just saying > it's aimed at a different audience. Many photographers have adapted it to > their needs quite well. It's just that all the stuff in it that will > probably not be used by Photographers is what makes it cost $600, and hard > to learn. I'm recommending that most people save the time and money and > get right to the meat of what they want by using Picture Window Pro. > > OK, enough stirring the pot. > > See you later, gs > > - > > Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > "Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac > interface" > > --
Re: OT: Mac Blat
It would be really hard to get Gates (Microsoft) to pay Apple royalties since the MAC interface is a simplified version of the LISA interface (also Apple), which was a complete copy of Xerox's experimental interface from their Palo Alto Research Center. Neither organization would want to open that can of worms. (Although in the suit by Apple Microsoft could always claim prior art, but that would expose both sets of pirates). At 01:29 PM 1/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: >> how hard it is to use a Mac > > This is a classic oxymoron! Cotty, Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface that Gate's lawyers somehow weaseled him out of paying for, the ease of use of _all_ computers is directly related to the ease of use of Macs. Even though Windows is still inferior in every way. In virtually every creative field, there are true innovators, then there are the often rapacious, often more energetic and less principled imitators that follow on their heels and opportunistically appropriate the market. Windows PCs are second-rate consumer products. The Microsoft OS is third-rate. The real personal computers are Macs. Macs are superior products. They work better, they are more elegant, they are more pleasant to work with, they're designed better. The OS is much more stable and elegant and the interface is far better. Even as objects they are much more aesthetically pleasing to have in the home. Now that so many outside companies are writing software for them and Apple is no longer controlling the compatibility standards, I'm finally experiencing crashes on my Mac. But I worked with a Mac Quadra for _six years_ at the magazine, nine hours a day, five days a week, and guess how many crashes or freezes I ever experienced? None. Zero. It never happened. No downtime, ever, period, except one time when the starter battery on the motherboard ran dry. Try that with a PC. As soon as I go 100% OSX native, I hope to reclaim that. I understand that many people have to use PCs because their work demands it, their computers are provided by their employers or their workplaces are standardized on PCs, they need certain software that is only available for PCs, or simply because they've always used PCs and it's difficult to switch platforms. There are lots of good reasons for being stuck with PCs. But "stuck" is the word. To me, PCs are just appliances. They betray poor taste and a lack of aesthetic sense in their makers, if not their owners. They're crass. I thank my lucky stars I started with Macs and I will never switch unless I am absolutely forced to do so, and then I'll wait until the absolute last possible moment. --Mike P.S. My "Sunday Morning Photographer" column two weeks from now is called "The Best of 2002," in which I name a bunch of products as the best of the year and discuss them--best photography book, best digital camera, best enlarger, that sort of thing. Can you guess what won "Best Digital Photography Computer Workstation"? I'll give you a hint--it's not a dang PC. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Not quite correct, the guy who actually wrote Q-dos got nothing but his salary in the deal. The company that he worked for got the fee. There is some justice, he did eventually get a cushy job at Microsoft, while his boss's went out of business. At 03:10 PM 1/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: In a message dated 1/11/2003 2:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > That Apple ripped off from Xerox PARC. > > Everything's derivative. > There are no rules! > Yada, yada. > > BR Not quite, because Bill Gates is the ultimate rip-off artist. And M$ is re-known for getting away with it. IIRC the guy that "invented" Dos got a minimal flat fee from Gates and never saw any other profit. Access is a rip-off of Paradox; Excel is a rip-off of Lotus; the list goes on and on. I WISH that Word had been a rip-off of Word Perfect, then it would be a better program. But Word Perfect is one product that managed to maintain its integrity against copying by M$, even if they did not maintain their market share. Which is why I do not upgrade from one Windows version to another until I am absolutely forced to. Doe aka Marnie Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Not really a rip off. The founder of DR was something of an Idealist and wasn't against the use of his structures to create a code compatible version of CPM86. Microsoft did however reverse engineer some of CPM86 to fix a few bugs in DOS. At 07:30 AM 1/12/2003 +1100, you wrote: - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > IIRC the guy that "invented" Dos got a minimal flat fee from Gates and never saw any other profit. Access is a rip-off of Paradox; Excel is a rip-off of Lotus; the list goes on and on. > Actually, the guy that got paid for Dos (Seattle Computer) ripped it off from Digital Research! Bob Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Oh what fun. See comments inline. My opinion is Bruce is correct. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Not quite, because Bill Gates is the ultimate rip-off artist. And M$ is re-known for getting away with it. > > IIRC the guy that "invented" Dos got a minimal flat fee from Gates and never saw any other profit. Seattle Computer Works CPM-86 (IIRC) which was a rip-off of CPM. >Access is a rip-off of Paradox Which was a rip-off of DBase >Excel is a rip-off of Lotus Which was a rip-off of SuperCalc which was a rip-off of Visicalc. >the list goes on and on. It sure does. Why do you think all those guys are so worried about people ripping off their software? I will tell you. Because that is how they got started, ripping off someone elses software. > > I WISH that Word had been a rip-off of Word Perfect, then it would be a better program. But Word Perfect is one product that managed to maintain its integrity against copying by M$, even if they did not maintain their market share. Actually, I rather liked Word 6.0, of course they had to screw it up in the name of profits. Word Perfect was a rip-off. In fact the only word processor that I know of that was written without copying something else was Lazy Writer. Welsh had never even seen a word processor when he wrote it. It was different to say the least. > > Which is why I do not upgrade from one Windows version to another until I am absolutely forced to. Well, I can agree with that. But my reason is "Don't fix it if it ain't broke". As soon as they get the bugs out they replace it with something untried. I only upgrade when there is something I want to use that will not run on the old system.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Try Microfrontier's Color It!, http://www.microfrontier.com/products/colorit40/index.html At 6:53 PM -08001/11/03, Keith Whaley wrote: > >I'd much rather use something else... > >keith whaley -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
Re: OT: Mac Blat
In a message dated 1/11/2003 11:19:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I noticed a > long time ago that what someone accuses others of is what > you can expect > them to do if they get the chance. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto Hehehe. Doe aka Marnie
Re: OT: Mac Blat
In a message dated 1/11/2003 7:05:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Now, as far as Photoshop is concerned, I also have an opinion on > that. (Time to stir the pot.) To recommend Photoshop to a photographer > getting into image processing is a disservice. That novice > would be much > better served by Picture Window Pro at one fifth the cost. > > Sure, there are at least 100 current titles on Photoshop. Or PaintShop Pro by JASC (http://www.jasc.com) which probably does a lot of the same things PhotoShop does when it comes to photos. Or at least a major portion of them. Also one fifth (or less) the cost. Doe aka Marnie Sorry, I love PaintShop Pro and I don't feel that strongly about very many programs.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Yes, I know. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 11:26 PM Subject: Re: OT: Mac Blat > In a message dated 1/11/2003 11:19:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I noticed a > > long time ago that what someone accuses others of is what > > you can expect > > them to do if they get the chance. > > > > Ciao, > > Graywolf > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > Hehehe. > > Doe aka Marnie >
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Sure is. 1. open source is by definition not ripped off. 2. if you bought the rights to it it is not ripped off. 3. If you cloned (reverse engineered) it with a different look and feel it is not ripped off. However, most of the heroes of the early personal computer era were avowed hackers in the original sense of the term, not the 2 current usages, and they think everybody is doing the same thing with their stuff. I noticed a long time ago that what someone accuses others of is what you can expect them to do if they get the chance. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There is a big difference between rip-off and derivative. And not everything is derivative.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
There always was one big difference between Lotus and Excel - Lotus didn't screw your keyboard macros when a new version came in! I am still using data entry macros in some spreadsheet jobs that I wrote in 1987, and I'm up to Smartsuite 97. On the other hand, an Excel job I did for a client last year fell in a heap when I was trying to add buttons and other objects to it - there is an undocumented upper limit to the number of objects a workbook can contain! I think too that Lotus was derivative rather than a rip-off. Mitch Kapoor said at a Lotus users conference in 1984, that the first versions (up to 2.1 IIRC) were written in Assembler, but they then rewrote the whole thing in C. The sad thing is that some of the programs written for Windows 3.1 and earlier simply won't run in later versions - I tried Pagemaker 3 the other day, and it won't even install! I wanted to test a lean mean, 1980's era program on today's fast CPU, big memory systems; the only instance I have currently is a dBASE application I wrote in 1989 or thereabouts which absolutely scorches on a Pentium III 450 mHz with 512 mB. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 1:32 PM Subject: Re: OT: Mac Blat > > >Excel is a rip-off of Lotus > > There is no doubt of that, there is very little difference between the two. Anyone familiar with Lotus (Dos Version) can see that all Excel added was a Windows interface -- otherwise they are almost identical. (Except VBA replaced Lotus' macros, but that is really only apparent on a "programming" level -- and not that big a change.) > > > > > Which was a rip-off of SuperCalc which was a rip-off of Visicalc. > > I think Lotus borrowed more from VisiCalc, myself. However, a great deal of Lotus was innovative as well, it really carried spreadsheets to a new and higher level. > > >
Vs: OT: Mac Blat
Microsoft DID have to pay Apple - after a court decision. Easy it wasn´t. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 12. tammikuuta 2003 2:28 Aihe: Re: OT: Mac Blat >It would be really hard to get Gates (Microsoft) to pay Apple royalties since >the MAC interface is a simplified version of the LISA interface (also Apple), >which was a complete copy of Xerox's experimental interface from their Palo >Alto >Research Center. Neither organization would want to open that can of worms. >(Although in the suit by Apple Microsoft could always claim prior art, but that >would expose both sets of pirates). > >At 01:29 PM 1/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: >> >> how hard it is to use a Mac >> > >> > This is a classic oxymoron! >> >> >>Cotty, >>Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface that >>Gate's lawyers somehow weaseled him out of paying for, the ease of use of >>_all_ computers is directly related to the ease of use of Macs. Even though >>Windows is still inferior in every way. >> >>In virtually every creative field, there are true innovators, then there are >>the often rapacious, often more energetic and less principled imitators that >>follow on their heels and opportunistically appropriate the market. Windows >>PCs are second-rate consumer products. The Microsoft OS is third-rate. The >>real personal computers are Macs. >> >>Macs are superior products. They work better, they are more elegant, they >>are more pleasant to work with, they're designed better. The OS is much more >>stable and elegant and the interface is far better. Even as objects they are >>much more aesthetically pleasing to have in the home. Now that so many >>outside companies are writing software for them and Apple is no longer >>controlling the compatibility standards, I'm finally experiencing crashes on >>my Mac. But I worked with a Mac Quadra for _six years_ at the magazine, nine >>hours a day, five days a week, and guess how many crashes or freezes I ever >>experienced? None. Zero. It never happened. No downtime, ever, period, >>except one time when the starter battery on the motherboard ran dry. Try >>that with a PC. As soon as I go 100% OSX native, I hope to reclaim that. >> >>I understand that many people have to use PCs because their work demands it, >>their computers are provided by their employers or their workplaces are >>standardized on PCs, they need certain software that is only available for >>PCs, or simply because they've always used PCs and it's difficult to switch >>platforms. There are lots of good reasons for being stuck with PCs. But >>"stuck" is the word. To me, PCs are just appliances. They betray poor taste >>and a lack of aesthetic sense in their makers, if not their owners. They're >>crass. I thank my lucky stars I started with Macs and I will never switch >>unless I am absolutely forced to do so, and then I'll wait until the >>absolute last possible moment. >> >>--Mike >>
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Hi Doug... Thank you for the recommendation. I have a copy of Color It! (v.3.09) I got with my Epson digital camera. I use it along with it's Scan Wizard plug-in to manipulate my scanner images, but, I have NOT yet used it to fool around with digital photo images. It's not that I'm _looking_ for some image manipulation software, I'm not! If I gave anyone that impression, I apologize. With Graphic Converter, Image Expert, Kai's PhotoSoap, Color It!, ArcSoft's brand new Photo Impression, all of which I already have, I can probably do just about all the image manipulation I'd conceivably need. I was merely sticking my 2¢ in, saying that I do know a tiny bit about Adobe's PhotoShop, simply because I know folks that have the full up version on their personal Windows machines. Therefore I do know what a huge program PhotoShop is, and I was commenting on how expensive it is, and expressing my _opinion_ that it's so much more than MOST folks will ever need. For the pro photographer, no comment. They have needs I'll never run across, so that's way out of my ken...but for the 'average' Mac owner, there are programs out there that are much smaller, much cheaper, and for THEM, easily as capable. Thanks again for the recommendation. Color It! is indeed a great image creation and manipulation appl for the Mac. keith whaley * * * * Doug Brewer wrote: > > Try Microfrontier's Color It!, > > http://www.microfrontier.com/products/colorit40/index.html > > At 6:53 PM -08001/11/03, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > >I'd much rather use something else... > > > >keith whaley > > -- > Douglas Forrest Brewer > Ashwood Lake Photography > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.alphoto.com
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 11 Jan 2003 at 13:34, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2003 at 13:29, Mike Johnston wrote: > > > > > > > Macs are superior products. They work better, they are more elegant, they > > > > are more pleasant to work with, they're designed better. > > > > > > Mike, you should get out more. > > > > He has. That's why he knows what he knows... > > I'd argue that anyone with such a narrow perspective has not had sufficient > experience with both platforms or has not had the benefit of using a well > designed and configured PC based computer. BTW computers are tools not Ikea > furniture. Yes, and there are some out there who still insist on using wooden lead pencils for writing. The output will eventually be the same, but getting there is more laborious ~ consumes a greater number of manhours. Given the output in 'plain text' I've seen operators who far prefer the old amber or green screen and archaic text of early Dos days... Not many, but some do. These guys work for themselves, you understand. No-one wants to hire them for some odd reason. I'm not trying to be absurd here, these people exist. Just as folks exist that have used both, are equally (or almost equally) proficient with both platforms, who prefer Windows. I'm NOT arguing that, however... I've used both Macs and Windows and Unix (Sun) machines, professionally, for CADD work, and while I could eventually get the same work out of all of them, I far prefer the Macintosh for my work platform because it's far easier for ME to work with, it's more intuitive and they ALL work alike, 2 years old or 15 years old! Up thru O/S 8.x they did, anyhow. That's changing. I recognize that. But, that's just me. Others may have other opinions. No problem with that. It's just that I've not met very many who are equally proficient in CADD or Graphics design on either machine that actually prefer Windows units... These people predominately prefer the Mac. IMMHO. keith whaley > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Mac Blat
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: > Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface that > Gate's lawyers somehow weaseled him out of paying for, the ease of use of > _all_ computers is directly related to the ease of use of Macs. Even though > Windows is still inferior in every way. And MacOS is a blatant ripoff of Xerox's X Window System and Parc? Whine, whine, whine, Mac mac mac.. versus whine whine whine, PC PC PC. I hearby nominate this sort of useless argument to the same field as gun talk. Stupid. pointless, and bound to aggravate everyone involved. So, you disagree with the firearm discussions, and I'm going to vehemently disagree with this thread. Matter of fact, if this is what's going ot start upo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start threads on firearms. The rest of the nonsense has been snipped, move on to ANY other topic.. Like film versus digital, we haven't talked about that in what seems like hours. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, gfen wrote: > I hearby nominate this sort of useless argument to the same field as gun > talk. Stupid. pointless, and bound to aggravate everyone involved. This is what happens when you read messae #100 in a list of 400.. by the time the end rolls around, its (thankfully) already over. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm gear. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that people should be reminded of once in a while.
Re: OT: Mac Blat
"Bruce R" posted: > A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. > And you never miss an opportunity to make this argument, do you?
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. > > BR That's not at all logical. It's merely an extension of your inaccurate presumption. One has nothing to do with the other, in any way imaginable. Totally Apples and Pentaxii... keith whaley > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I > >think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic > >designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that > >people should be reminded of once in a while. > >
Re: OT: Mac Blat
> A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. It happens. When I joined a group studio around 1988 I switched from Contax to Nikon. All three of the other photographers used Nikon, and between us we had 11 bodies and 30 lenses. Not only could I not borrow the communal equipment, but I couldn't _contribute_ to it, either. So I switched. Bought an N8008 and an F4s and a few lenses the other folks didn't have. I had a pretty close relationship to Bronica in the 1980s, because I wrote some positive articles about them that they purchased for reprint. A not-too-well-kept secret back then was that studio photographers had a hard time using Bronica because most A.D.s only knew Hasselblad. In their eyes, if you shot Hassie, you were a serious photographer and they (the A.D.s) had covered their a**es. If you shot something else, you were going to lose work. What the client wants, ya better give 'em. There have been an awful lot of studio photographers over the past three decades who went into Hasselblad just because it was the thing they had to have. --Mike
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Mike, Just interesting food for thought - I found out that the underlying OS for the Agfa D-Labs is Windows 2000. One wonders why they made that decision. One angle could be connectivity. Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 11:47:25 AM, you wrote: >> Whine, whine, whine, Mac mac mac.. versus whine whine whine, PC PC PC. >> >> I hearby nominate this sort of useless argument to the same field as gun >> talk. Stupid. pointless, and bound to aggravate everyone involved. >> >> So, you disagree with the firearm discussions, and I'm going to vehemently >> disagree with this thread. Matter of fact, if this is what's going ot >> start upo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start threads on firearms. MJ> You could always do what I did during the firearms discussion and simply MJ> leave the list for the duration. The other alternative is censorship, MJ> unfortunately. MJ> I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I MJ> think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic MJ> designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that MJ> people should be reminded of once in a while. It serves as a corrective to MJ> the constant propaganda that "all serious computer users use PCs." Macs are MJ> not a fringe product in my world. The magazine publishers I've worked for in MJ> my life have collectively published 56 different newsstand magazines. All MJ> were put together exclusively on Macs. I don't have the widest experience in MJ> the world, but I've been around some, and I have yet to see a single MJ> "creatives" shop--graphics design, advertising, or professional photography MJ> studio--that was running PCs. I'm sure the exceptions exist, but that MJ> doesn't change the prevailing norms. MJ> Some people might be interested in these facts. And, unfortunately, it is MJ> far more germane to a photography discussion site than most topics relating MJ> to firearms. I wish it weren't so--I'd personally be happier if digital MJ> never existed, and the days of film photography were never going to end. But MJ> that's not the reality. Hey, man, replacing the darkroom with computers MJ> wasn't *my* choice! MJ> --Mike
Re: OT: Mac Blat
Damn right. And they ought to get rid of all that color BS too. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 2:47 PM Subject: Re: OT: Mac Blat > > Whine, whine, whine, Mac mac mac.. versus whine whine whine, PC PC PC. > > > > I hearby nominate this sort of useless argument to the same field as gun > > talk. Stupid. pointless, and bound to aggravate everyone involved. > > > > So, you disagree with the firearm discussions, and I'm going to vehemently > > disagree with this thread. Matter of fact, if this is what's going ot > > start upo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start threads on firearms. > > > You could always do what I did during the firearms discussion and simply > leave the list for the duration. The other alternative is censorship, > unfortunately. > > I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I > think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic > designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that > people should be reminded of once in a while. It serves as a corrective to > the constant propaganda that "all serious computer users use PCs." Macs are > not a fringe product in my world. The magazine publishers I've worked for in > my life have collectively published 56 different newsstand magazines. All > were put together exclusively on Macs. I don't have the widest experience in > the world, but I've been around some, and I have yet to see a single > "creatives" shop--graphics design, advertising, or professional photography > studio--that was running PCs. I'm sure the exceptions exist, but that > doesn't change the prevailing norms. > > Some people might be interested in these facts. And, unfortunately, it is > far more germane to a photography discussion site than most topics relating > to firearms. I wish it weren't so--I'd personally be happier if digital > never existed, and the days of film photography were never going to end. But > that's not the reality. Hey, man, replacing the darkroom with computers > wasn't *my* choice! > > --Mike >
Re: OT: Mac Blat
gfen wrote: > They're both tools. Each has its stronger points, and its weaker points. > To not see this simple fact is to be ignorant and/or blind. For each pro > of one system, there is a con for the other, and in the end neither is > better or worse. Okay, fair enough. Subsequent to reading the Rob Galbraith article BR pointed us to, I asked Alienware if I can borrow an Alienware Area-51m for review. I probably can't write the best review in the world, since my skill with PCs is much less than my skill with Macs, but I'll get some help and then give it my best shot if they actually send me one, and whatever I say will at least be honest and accurate as far as it goes. I'm willing to try it. For the record, I haven't yet gotten an eMac out of Apple to review. --Mike
Re: OT: Mac Blat
> >>I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I >>think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic >>designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that >>people should be reminded of once in a while. >> I remember when we switched from pen-and-ink ruling and hot metal type to Macs. We had thrity-six people in the typesetting department, which management soon pared down to a dozen or so. It was a sad day when we threw out that huge old Robertson process camera that took up most of two rooms. One reason we chose Macs over anything else was cost. The Macs worked a little - but they were dead slow, and we had to learn a lot of things to "never' do. Our other options were proprietary systems that cost a fortune and could only set type, not modify or create art. Funny thing - over the course of ten years, our Prepress operators never really learned the difference between RAM and hard disk space. They were always complaining about running out of "memory", but they couldn't tell me if their hard drive was full or if they had a RAM shortage. They were really impressed when I bought G3's and G4's with lots of RAM and big hard drives, but still they managed to run out of memory... running the same small tasks and small vector files as they ran on their IIci with tiny bits of RAM and 10 mb HD... g. I'd get so mad Windows was not even a workable solution at that time we bought Macs. I think that's where most of the Graphic Arts foundation of Mac phrenzy came from. Before Windows 95 (or more accurately Win 98) Macs clearly outperformed Windows boxes for the simple reason that Windows machines did not work at all running graphics programs. They crashed often and hard. Macs crashed a lot, too, but they were more pleasant crashes that did not require a complete re-install of the OS. A few years ago PC's started to run rings around Macs, but no dyed-in-the-wool graphics artist really wants to accept that simple fact. They've got too much history with Macs to change. Old dogs, sort of. Oh, recently Macs have started to improve a little, but now they're a sorta like Windows - the fastest machines require serious tweaking and multiple OS boots to run favorite applications, and to be really good you will have your favorite version of OS tweaked just right. The days of plug-and-play simplicity of Macs are over for sure, if there ever was really such a time (I had a hell of a time getting a simple modem and internet connection on a G3 once, and my four G4's still intermittently fail to logon to the server on startup, something I've never had happen with the Windows machines.) But like a tech at my shop once said with a grin, as he was installing a new NT server connecting our formerly all-Mac Apple-talk-slow group of computers: "the best thing that ever happened to Macs is Windows NT." -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Apology: OT Mac Blat
Cotty wrote: > > Folks, > > I hereby duly apologise. I should know better but I was stupid enough to > hit the send button before my brain engaged and prevented me. Please > accept my humblest sorrow for initiating what must rank as a verbotten > thread. > > For the record, I read: > > > how hard it is to use a Mac > > and for the record, I responded: > > >> This is a classic oxymoron! > > and for the record, I would just like to say that my intention was > entirely honourable. I did not mean to denigrate anyone's choice of > computer brand - I simply meant that Macs are not hard to use, end of > story. > > Again, apologies. > > Tail between legs, 'S okay, Cotty. Even *I* lie like that, once in a while, if the subject is worthwhile, and the education is important to impart... keith > > Cotty
Re: Apology: OT Mac Blat
And right you are to apologize, Cotty. I was looking at Macs in Comp USA down in Charlotte today. Obviously they are pop sculpture, not working tools. Any worthwhile computer has to be in an ugly black (or at least beige) box. Good lord, those apple people don't even know what a computer is supposed to look like. How can one trust somebody like that? Now if I just had room for one more tape drive with my system (see the movie Andromeda Strain if you want to know what a computer is supposed to look like). Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I hereby duly apologise.
Re: Apology: OT Mac Blat
Next time, stick to something less controversial like which flavor of Christianity is best . . . 8^)
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
On 1/12/03 3:03 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A logical extension of this argument would be that all people who use > Pentax 35mm SLRs, and have professional aspirations, should switch to > another brand, since virtually no working professionals use Pentax 35mm > gear. I have many Japanese friends who also frequent PDML. You are well known to them :-). Sometimes, you spread misleading info :-). You are certainly a knowledgeable person but frankly you can contribute to PDML in better ways without trying to satisfy your sadistic mind. Much of your info come from Nikon list and Pentax-hating NYC camera dealers, at least that's what people say. Perhaps. I do not pretend to be knowledgeable on photography but I just wish to say that the bad thing about your post (not al of them) is essentially making Pentax owners dumb and stupid in their selection of Pentax gear. Moreover, my Japanese colleagues agree that you must be on some kind of mission for "switch campaign" :-). I hope you are not benefiting by doing so. As in any part of the world, Pentax owners are not just the bargain hunting cheap crowd. They are determined Pentax users, finding the merits in Pentax. Many of them appreciates the Pentax glasses, and conscientious design of bodies which are distinct Pentax tradition. Also, many Pentax users also have Nikon and Canon as I do. If Pentax won't do a job in certain sports shooting etc which require higher FPS, you just buy a suitable set of Nikon or Canon (or Minolta or whatever) equipment for that purpose. But PDMLers predominantly use Pentax. Many Pentax users also choose Pentax because they do not want to be regarded in the same mould of crowd. They may wish to be Maverick, as I do ;-). Anyone can buy C/N if they so wish. It is even easier to do so. But it is indeed difficult to stay with Pentax in the sea of N/C unless you do appreciate their gears. While we all make sarcastic comments on N/C etc, they are all excellent makers and equip. Everybody knows it. Just take it easy. You should respect other people's choice and decision. I seldom saw severe critique by PDMLers of your choice of Nikon. If there were any, it was just teasing. You are obviously a disgruntled Pentax user and your input would be invaluable in a way. But you do not have to insult people who use Pentax. PDML, as I like to understand, is to exchange info on good as well as bad on our beloved equip. But frankly, your attitude here is extremely un-gentleman like. One of the very prominent virtues of this list is the remarkable resiliency and the decency of people who participate in this list, in spite of occasional flame wars. The culture of this list apparently has been built up over the years by various participants. It is this unique culture of this list, in my opinion, that attracts people to this list, besides the wealth of info you can get from it. So, I would respectfully request that you stop making silly and poisonous posting only in an attempt to make Pentax owners feel bad. In fact, very few people are affected by your such postings. They are wise enough to ignore or kill your posts (am I the only fool making comments on this? :-), and you should realize that you are embarrassing yourself. Don't be a naked emperor. Your bad posts are tolerated only because this is none other than PDML. You know it and you are taking advantage of it. The remarkable resiliency of PDMLers as a whole is allowing you to stay in this list. If you did the same thing in any other list, you know too well what's going to happen. So, your harsh critique on Pentax gear is always welcome, but please keep the minimum etiquette. Sorry for giving you a lecture, but let's keep the list somewhat more decent. Bye for now Cheers, Ken
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than the other. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I >think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic >designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that >people should be reminded of once in a while. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O I have many Japanese friends who also frequent PDML. You are well known to them :-). Sometimes, you spread misleading info :-).
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
On 12 Jan 2003 at 17:24, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred > platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you > want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer > is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most > basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way > that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. > If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is > also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than > the other. I've got to back Bruce up on these points, the "Mac Blat" thread was crammed full of brand based fallacies.. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Sorry Bruce, I was not responding to your particular contention under the Mac Blat thread, hence changing the subject line. But I thought you never failed to grab the opportunity to poison the list to the point it became so predictable when and how you show up with equally predictable posts. I suppose a lot of people would think the same way but they are too nice to say things here. I am just a lurker and it would be less harmful if I said things many people wanted to say. BTW, I am getting a wealth of info from this list and I am grateful for it, thank you folks. Cheers, Ken On 1/12/03 5:24 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred > platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you > want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer > is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most > basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way > that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. > If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is > also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than > the other. > > BR > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > I agree that this is generally a useless, aggravating discussion. However, I think the fact that professional photographers, publishers, and graphic designers have all standardized on Macs and Photoshop is something that people should be reminded of once in a while. >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> O >> >> I have many Japanese friends who also frequent PDML. You are well known to >> them :-). >> Sometimes, you spread misleading info :-). >> > >
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Rob, I agree. Bruce Sunday, January 12, 2003, 3:30:38 PM, you wrote: RS> On 12 Jan 2003 at 17:24, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: >> Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred >> platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you >> want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer >> is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most >> basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way >> that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. >> If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is >> also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than >> the other. RS> I've got to back Bruce up on these points, the "Mac Blat" thread was crammed RS> full of brand based fallacies.. RS> Rob Studdert RS> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS> [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
> Look, Johnston initially made the argument that the Mac is the preferred > platform because it is used by professionals. This implies that if you > want to work like professional you should use a Mac. Since the computer > is now a photographic tool, the same premise would apply to the most > basic tool of the photographer, which is the camera. In the same way > that PCs are not professional grade tools, neither are Pentaxes. > If you think that this is one big crock for camera brands, then it is > also one big crock for which computer platform is more legitimate than > the other. How good are you at logic? Viewed from a logical perspective, the argument above is specious on its face. I'll give you the proof: I use Macs, and I use Pentaxes. If your premises and reasoning as presented above were sound, then both those things couldn't be true at once. Gotcha, Brucie. ;-) --Mike
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Back up to my original post. It said, "virtually no professional photographers use 35mm Pentax SLRs". I never stated that it was impossible to use both. You have proved nothing. Stick to being an Artiste. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How good are you at logic? Viewed from a logical perspective, the argument above is specious on its face. I'll give you the proof: I use Macs, and I use Pentaxes. If your premises and reasoning as presented above were sound, then both those things couldn't be true at once. Gotcha, Brucie. ;-) --Mike -- Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Re: Please behave (was OT: Mac Blat)
Sounds like the riddle of Schrodinger's Camera... Mike Johnston wrote: > How good are you at logic? Viewed from a logical perspective, the argument > above is specious on its face. > > I'll give you the proof: I use Macs, and I use Pentaxes. If your premises > and reasoning as presented above were sound, then both those things couldn't > be true at once. > > Gotcha, Brucie. ;-) > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Picture Window Pro Recommendation was - Re: OT: Mac Blat
Your point is well taken... I'll revisit their web site, and find an address for correspondence. Good idea, keith Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Keith, > > You should at least write to them with the request. If they don't get > enough requests, they won't consider it. If it appears to be a good > market (interest from the Mac crowd) then perhaps they would move that > direction. > > Bruce > > Saturday, January 11, 2003, 7:00:34 PM, you wrote: > > KW> Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> > >> In the name of sanity I am changin the subject. > >> > >> I too, give a hearty thumbs up to Picture Window. As a photographer I > >> have found it to suit my needs quite well - and yes, the price is much > >> lower than Photoshop. > > KW> Now, if only it were made for the Mac... > > KW> keith
Re: Picture Window Pro Recommendation was - Re: OT: Mac Blat
Keith Whaley said: "Now, if only it were made for the Mac..." Now and then someone asks about Mac support on the Picture Window support bulletin board. Someone from Digital Light and Color usually answers that it should run fine under Virtual PC, but they don't really advertise or support that. See you later, gs
