Digital BW, The Print

On Jan 22, 2005, at 1:56 AM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>    From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: mac vs PC
>
> - andu - writes:
>
>> As you notice most people use windows platform either because they
>> have to (work, issues with file sharing etc.), or they just followed
>> the crowd (nobody's perfect) and considered that rebooting your
>> computer every once in a while is just part of the regular computer
>> experience.
>
> You're partially right.  Most people use Windows because most other
> people use Windows ... it's simply the default choice for anyone who
> doesn't really care which operating system he is using.


	Very true - or he/she went to a store and bought the particular 
machine the salesperson was pushing that week because he/she got the 
most "spiff" - kickback from that particular maker
>
> Those who pick Windows explicitly usually do so because PCs are less
> expensive than Macs, or because the variety of applications available
> for Windows is dramatically larger than that available for Macs.

	not true - there are now more than 17,000 programs available for OS X 
- there are dramatically fewer than this for each operating version for 
PC's - remember a program for Windows 98 won't run on XP and vice 
versa. There are however a few key program that do not exist on the Mac 
platform - such as MS's Access.
>
> Some people choose PC platforms because it prevents them from being 
> 100%
> dependent on any one company.  Microsoft produces Windows, but there 
> are
> several versions of Windows, and there are other, non-Microsoft
> operating systems that will also run on a PC (Linux and UNIX are 
> popular
> choices, and there are several other options).  Hardware can be bought
> from anyone, and even for the most important part of the PC--the
> microprocessor--there are two leading suppliers (Intel and AMD).

	Read below regarding processors - and if you want to run Linux - or 
Windows for that matter on a Mac - no problem - it will run them all- 
concurrently with OSX  - AND - OS 9 if you so want - I still use a 
program that died 5 years ago and only runs under system 9 - works 
flawlessly!
>
> With a Mac, all the hardware and OS software comes from Apple. You
> either do it Apple's way, at Apple's price, or not at all. If you want
> complete consistency, this is the way to get it, but if you want
> flexibility or freedom or low cost, it's very constraining.

	I've been using Macs since 1984 - my freedom consist of always being 
able to work - knowing that my machines always work - never crashes - 
do what I want them to do, never get viruses - don'[t get obsolete in a 
few years, I can add parts and 3rd part stuff to them and they still 
work - my major desktop is now a 4 year old G4 - upgraded (by myself) 
with a 3rd party processor, has 11 drives (usb and Firewire) hooked up 
to it as well as 2 SCSI scanners - 1 film, 1 flatbed - connected to 2 
3rd party SCSI cards and 1 Firewire burner and 2 printers. It works - 
always - and Photoshop CS never crashes as it seems to do on an umber 
of PC users in these forums - and I routinely work with 1 GB files.
>
> The Mac does have the advantage of being very easy to use and very
> reliable in most cases (because all the key variables are controlled by
> Apple).  In years past it was also the preferred platform for the
> graphic arts--printing and publishing, image manipulation, music,
> etc.--although that advantage is largely historical now in the more
> popular domains.  Some people buy Macs because they look so pretty on a
> desk (yes, really!).  And the Mac has a large following of religiously
> devoted users who would buy Apple and Mac no matter what, as their only
> criterion of choice is that the machine be a Mac (PCs and Windows do 
> not
> benefit from this type of religious following).

	It still is the platform of choice for those who insist on reliability 
and speed - even Microsoft uses MAcs for all their publishing 
needs..=*^)
>
>> The reason why you want a Mac is the operating system which is based
>> in large proportion on FreeBSD, one of the most stable and secure
>> operating systems, ever, if an application has trouble it won't take
>> down with it the whole system as it happens more often then not with
>> windows.
>
> Actually, Windows XP and other NT-based operating systems are no less
> stable than Mac OS X.  Instability in a desktop operating system today
> is related more to other factors than to the OS design itself; both the
> UNIX foundation of OS X and the NT foundation of newer versions of
> Windows are intrinsically rock-stable and can run for years without a
> boot.

	Not so if you read these lists..=*^)
>
> Older desktop operating systems are very unstable by comparison and had
> serious design flaws.  The non-NT versions of Windows (Windows 9x,
> 16-bit Windows, etc.) are in this category, as is the older Mac OS.

	Once I stopped using Microsoft programs about 6 years ago in OS 9 I 
never had any problems - system 9 was quite reliable if you understood 
it - and gave each program you used twice the minimum memory it 
wanted...
>
>> The idea that if you configure a windows box properly or use only
>> choice hardware components, is wrong. One should do those to get
>> maximum performance from such a system not to just prevent it from
>> crashing.
>
> You don't need choice hardware components or special configuration to
> make a Windows machine stable.  As long as you are using XP, 2000, or
> NT, it will be stable on any decent hardware platform.

	Again - not so from the posts on this very list.
>
>> Buy a mac and you won't regret it, both for general work and digital
>> black and white.
>
> An unjustifiable generalization.  You may or may not regret it.  In
> cases where people do regret the purchase of a Mac, it is usually
> because they become locked into an expensive platform, or because they
> cannot use a large number of applications that exist only for Windows.
> In cases where they are happy to have bought a Mac, it is usually
> because Macs tend to be easier to use and more coherent than PCs.

	Here we go again with the argument that Mac is an expensive platform - 
if you configure a well regarded PC makers machine the same as a Mac - 
the Mac is usually very similar in price - and even sometimes cheaper - 
to this you must also take into consideration that the Mac does not 
become obsolete as fast - is more productive - many, many studies has 
proven this.
>
> In general, the least geeky users will choose Macs, and the most geeky
> users will choose a PC running Linux.  The mainstream is somewhere in
> between, running PCs under Windows.

	I support the notion that the most geeky users will choose PC's - 
often because they want to build their own - but that the least geeky 
users buy Macs I think is not why they choose Macs - rather it is ease 
of use - aesthetic beauty of the machines - yes, really - and because 
they WORK!..=*^)

Best,

Christer


Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
http://www.ChristerArt.com
3.5 million visitors to date..


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]