Digital BW, The Print

Christer Rosewelll writes:

> 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

I don't know that it's a question of kickbacks.  Most stores sell
whatever people buy.  At my favorite warehouse computer store, Macs used
to have an entire section of the building to themselves.  Now everything
from Apple is crammed into one small booth.  The former Mac zone
contains big-screen video displays, TVs, and multimedia equipment
(including one or two Apple Cinema Displays).

> not true - there are now more than 17,000 programs available for OS X

There are easily ten times more available for Windows.

Additionally, programs like ntpd or nethack don't really count, since
they are only useful to UNIX gurus.

> 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.

Essentially all 32-bit Windows programs will run on both XP and Windows
98.  By now I'd guess that there are around a quarter-million such
programs in existence.

> 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!

Most versions of Windows will run only on Intel hardware, although NT
(and perhaps still Windows 2000?) have been built for one or two other
platforms, and 64-bit versions of Windows are now in beta (still on
Intel hardware, IIRC).

Does Mac OS X run on Intel x86 hardware now?

> 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 ...

All of this is equally true for both Macs and PCs, so it's not an
argument specifically in favor of Macs.

> ... 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.

Here again, all of this is possible with PCs as well.

> It still is the platform of choice for those who insist on reliability
> and speed - even Microsoft uses MAcs for all their publishing 
> needs..

There's no difference in reliability or speed between Macs and PCs, so
again, this is not a criterion of choice that favors the Mac (or the
PC).

What leads you to believe that Microsoft is using Macs for their
electronic publishing?  All the major and necessary tools run on Windows
(indeed, some are now written primarily for Windows, such as Photoshop).

> Not so if you read these lists..=*^)

You shouldn't believe everything you read on lists.

> 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...

Current operating systems are reliable whether you "understand" them or
not.

It doesn't make sense to give a program twice the memory it wants,
although I suppose it doesn't hurt (as long as there is plenty of memory
in the system).

> Again - not so from the posts on this very list.

This list is one of the last places I'd look for expert opinions on
operating systems.  I have several decades of experience with them that
I consider vastly more reliable.

> Here we go again with the argument that Mac is an expensive platform
> ...

This has been the case every time I've compared prices, and other say
the same.  It's a major factor working against greater market
penetration for the Mac.

> ... if you configure a well regarded PC makers machine the same as
> a Mac ...

You can't.  They are two different hardware platforms.

> ... you must also take into consideration that the Mac does not
> become obsolete as fast ...

Neither platform becomes obsolete as long as your needs do not change.
And if your needs change, your system becomes obsolete no matter which
platform it is based on.

> ... is more productive - many, many studies has proven this.

No studies have proven anything of the kind.  It's impossible to measure
productivity objectively enough to produce such statistics.

> 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!..=*^)

Ease of use + aesthetic beauty = non-geek, and aesthetic beauty = not
average user as well (most people don't care what their computer looks
like, as long as it gets the job done).