Mac vs. pc for photo work

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <c7v9v0595f79t8j56aig2b3f9j2h9runei@4ax.com>, rafe bustin
<rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote:

> Let's compare apples to apples. The mere
> hardware assembly of a DIY PC should take
> no more than an hour or two. What takes
> the bulk of the time is installing the
> OS and applications, and then moving files
> from the "old" machine to the new. And that
> chunk of time will be the same, whether it's
> a DIY machine or straight out of the box
> from Dell or Apple.

if you buy a machine from apple or dell, the os is already installed.
it is ready to use *out of the box*.

copying old files is not a requirement to use the new machine, but may
be handy if the new machine is replacing the old one. in a corporate
setting, a users files might be on a network server anyway.

in the mac's case, copying files from the old machine is automatic if
you want. simply attach the old mac to the new mac and it copies your
old preferences and files over, automatically.

> How long do you keep a PC (or Mac) ?
>
> How many hours will you spend working on it,
> over its useful life?
>
> In my experience, 8 hours is low for assembling
> and fully configuring a DIY computer.

a whole day???? for what i can bill for a days work, i can buy a second
rather nice computer.

> On the other hand, considering how many hours
> I'll be using it, it's a small and wise
> investment.

so is spending a little extra and having it work out of the box and a
warranty if anything goes wrong.

if something fails with your home built, who covers the repair? or is
there fingerpointing such as 'our card works fine, it is your
motherboard' ?

again, it comes down to which is more expendable, money or time.

> But not for everyone, that's for sure, and
> it can be frustrating at times. OTOH, when
> you are done you will know something about
> the machine you'll be working on.

knowledge of the machine is nice, but not a requirement to do
productive work. just as knowing how an internal combustion engine
works is handy if you break down on the highway but 99% of the motoring
public still manages to get to where they are going without such
knowledge.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lisa Horton wrote:
> " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [-hh] wrote:
> > > > Howard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've used the Single Processor version of this machine [1.8GHz
G5]
> > > > and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I did throw a 1GB
> > > > photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did cause
> > > > it to pause and chew, it did swallow.
> > > >
> > > > -hh
> > >
> > > I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
> >
> > I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who
conveniently
> > ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to
invest
> > more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the
system.
> >
> > Personally, I've done DIY's too and generally, I won't bother to do
them
> > anymore because I'm more time-limited than money-limited. YMMV.
> >
> > Any comparison that doesn't try to account for known differences
between
> > A vs B simply isn't a very good comparison. to that end, a good
DIY PC
> > assembly will be an all day job IMO, which at 'skilled PC tech
rates' is
> > easily worth $500 in a comparison.
>

An all day job at 'skilled chef rates' can easily be worth a lot, yet
this can't be taken as an argument to reject cooking at home.

Building a machine is not for all situations, but when you want a
machine that's tailored to your specific needs with a certain degree of
quality, then building it can be a more efficient use of time and
effort than twisting yourself to fit with a mass-produced one or
cluelessly hassling with customer support about its faults.

I also think a DIY built machine is likely to last longer because it's
more likely upgradable.


> I would suggest that if it takes all day for a person to assemble a
PC,
> then perhaps that person shouldn't be assembling their own PC. It's
a
> couple of hours, Max, for most enthusiasts, about an hour and a half,
> max, for me.
>
> >
> > Now personally, I don't care if you DIY or not. Just please cut me
a
> > break and try to avoid insinuating that everyone else is wrong if
they
> > don't do a DIY as you did.
>
> DIY is far from being for everyone. In real life (as opposed to
online)
> I know few who are confident even to select components like MoBos.
>
> >
> > You may have paid a fraction of the cost, but I paid a fraction of
the
> > time. YMMV on which one is more valuable.
>
> When I can get a faster better machine cheaper by investing a few
hours,
> that CAN be worth it. For me anyway
>
> Lisa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

huntzing@pica.army.mil wrote:
> rafe bustin wrote:
>
>>Let's compare apples to apples.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
>>How long do you keep a PC (or Mac) ?
>
>
> PC's around 3 years; Mac's double that.
> I'll avoid the 'Total Cost of Ownership'
> debate that's implied by this.
>
>
>
>>How many hours will you spend working on it,
>>over its useful life?
>>
>>In my experience, 8 hours is low for assembling
>>and fully configuring a DIY computer.
>>
>>On the other hand, considering how many hours
>>I'll be using it, it's a small and wise
>>investment.
>
>
> Point made: this is one approach to the question,
> and the same argument can be made about spending an
> extra $500 - $1000 upfront too: over five years,
> that extra expense works out to only a couple of
> bucks a week: I guess I'm suggesting to DIY your
> coffee instead of buying it from Starbucks 🙂
>
> FWIW, my personal priority has been to minimize the
> non-productive hours that I'd have to be invested
> to maintain the system (from all sources): if I only
> have 10 hours/week that I can spend on my home PC,
> I'd prefer for 100% of them to be doing what I want,
> and not spent downloading the latest OS/AV updates.
> This means that a DIY is effectively suggesting that
> I should start out ~8 hours behind this power curve...
>
> But since DIY'ing only applies to Windows/Linux PC's;
> & since Photoshop isn't available for Linux, it really
> means Windows (the highest maintenance OS there is):
>
> ...which means that I'd never achieve "break even".
>
>
>
>
>>But not for everyone, that's for sure, and
>>it can be frustrating at times.
>
>
> DIY'ing is always a great thing when nothing goes wrong 🙂
>
> I've had enough time spent doing low-level formats and the
> like such that I no longer actively seek out this kind of
> work for the very reason that it is work, not fun.
>
>
>
>>OTOH, when you are done you will know something about
>>the machine you'll be working on.
>
>
> Sure. However, if my true objective is digital photography,
> wouldn't it be more beneficial to me to spend that time getting
> to learn more about Photoshop instead? I'd rather invest
> those same hours experimenting with the Mandrake Technique.
>
>
> -hh
>
You consider 8 hours in 3 years significant. One can configure WinXP to
download, and install, updates automatically now. Kind of defeats your
argument. BTW, I don't think a 6 year use life on an Apple is
reasonable, unless you don't mind having a lot of software and hardware
that won't run on your machine for the last 3 of those years.. Mac OS
updates tend to be NOT compatible with older ones, and even the hardware
support isn't compatible.
Surely one must consider these factors.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <FohJd.14631$eS7.9324@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> BTW, I don't think a 6 year use life on an Apple is
> reasonable, unless you don't mind having a lot of software and hardware
> that won't run on your machine for the last 3 of those years..

windows is not much different in this regard.

> Mac OS
> updates tend to be NOT compatible with older ones, and even the hardware
> support isn't compatible.

other than the mac os 9 to mac os x transition, which obsoleted a *lot*
of software and hardware, macs can and do run for quite a number of
years.

os x will run on macs as far back as 1997, and even 1995 with a little
effort. it may not be officially supported but it works. many of
those old macs can be upgraded to a g3 or g4, and while not as fast as
a new mac, they are still reasonable machines.

old machines (mac or pc) might not be the best choice for something
like rendering digital video and burning it to a dvd, but they are
still quite usable.

most any computer starts to show its age after 2-3 years. lots of new
software assumes the latest and greatest, and might not be optimal.
but the old stuff keeps on chugging just fine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
>
>>"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[-hh] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I've used the Single Processor version of this machine [1.8GHz G5]
>>>>and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I did throw a 1GB
>>>>photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did cause
>>>>it to pause and chew, it did swallow.
>>>>
>>>>-hh
>>>
>>>I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
>>
>>I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who conveniently
>>ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to invest
>>more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the system.
>>
>>Personally, I've done DIY's too and generally, I won't bother to do them
>>anymore because I'm more time-limited than money-limited. YMMV.
>>
>>Any comparison that doesn't try to account for known differences between
>>A vs B simply isn't a very good comparison. to that end, a good DIY PC
>>assembly will be an all day job IMO, which at 'skilled PC tech rates' is
>>easily worth $500 in a comparison.
>
>
> I would suggest that if it takes all day for a person to assemble a PC,
> then perhaps that person shouldn't be assembling their own PC. It's a
> couple of hours, Max, for most enthusiasts, about an hour and a half,
> max, for me.
>
>
>>Now personally, I don't care if you DIY or not. Just please cut me a
>>break and try to avoid insinuating that everyone else is wrong if they
>>don't do a DIY as you did.
>
>
> DIY is far from being for everyone. In real life (as opposed to online)
> I know few who are confident even to select components like MoBos.
>
>
>>You may have paid a fraction of the cost, but I paid a fraction of the
>>time. YMMV on which one is more valuable.
>
>
> When I can get a faster better machine cheaper by investing a few hours,
> that CAN be worth it. For me anyway
>
> Lisa

I highly personal choice. I am quite technically capable of assembling
my own computer, and setting up the software, I just don't get any
pleasure out of such things any more, and have the money to buy a
computer that is ready to plug and go.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
> >
> > " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
> >
> >>"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>[-hh] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Howard wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I've used the Single Processor version of this machine [1.8GHz G5]
> >>>>and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I did throw a 1GB
> >>>>photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did cause
> >>>>it to pause and chew, it did swallow.
> >>>>
> >>>>-hh
> >>>
> >>>I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
> >>
> >>I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who conveniently
> >>ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to invest
> >>more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the system.
> >>
> >>Personally, I've done DIY's too and generally, I won't bother to do them
> >>anymore because I'm more time-limited than money-limited. YMMV.
> >>
> >>Any comparison that doesn't try to account for known differences between
> >>A vs B simply isn't a very good comparison. to that end, a good DIY PC
> >>assembly will be an all day job IMO, which at 'skilled PC tech rates' is
> >>easily worth $500 in a comparison.
> >
> >
> > I would suggest that if it takes all day for a person to assemble a PC,
> > then perhaps that person shouldn't be assembling their own PC. It's a
> > couple of hours, Max, for most enthusiasts, about an hour and a half,
> > max, for me.
> >
> >
> >>Now personally, I don't care if you DIY or not. Just please cut me a
> >>break and try to avoid insinuating that everyone else is wrong if they
> >>don't do a DIY as you did.
> >
> >
> > DIY is far from being for everyone. In real life (as opposed to online)
> > I know few who are confident even to select components like MoBos.
> >
> >
> >>You may have paid a fraction of the cost, but I paid a fraction of the
> >>time. YMMV on which one is more valuable.
> >
> >
> > When I can get a faster better machine cheaper by investing a few hours,
> > that CAN be worth it. For me anyway
> >
> > Lisa
>
> I highly personal choice. I am quite technically capable of assembling
> my own computer, and setting up the software, I just don't get any
> pleasure out of such things any more, and have the money to buy a
> computer that is ready to plug and go.
>

I understand your view. I don't actually *enjoy* building them, but I
do enjoy having a machine that is custom built to my specifications,
configured specifically for my needs and priorities, not to mention
faster, cheaper, or both compared to anything pre-built. IOW, I don't
build them for the pleasure of building, but for the benefits that it
brings. Of course, you can pay someone else to assemble a machine to
your specs and get most of the benefit. But I trust my workmanship more
than anyone else's

Lisa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>>" H. Huntzinger" wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[-hh] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Howard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I've used the Single Processor version of this machine [1.8GHz
>
> G5]
>
>>>>>and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I did throw a 1GB
>>>>>photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did cause
>>>>>it to pause and chew, it did swallow.
>>>>>
>>>>>-hh
>>>>
>>>>I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
>>>
>>>I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who
>
> conveniently
>
>>>ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to
>
> invest
>
>>>more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the
>
> system.
>
>>>Personally, I've done DIY's too and generally, I won't bother to do
>
> them
>
>>>anymore because I'm more time-limited than money-limited. YMMV.
>>>
>>>Any comparison that doesn't try to account for known differences
>
> between
>
>>>A vs B simply isn't a very good comparison. to that end, a good
>
> DIY PC
>
>>>assembly will be an all day job IMO, which at 'skilled PC tech
>
> rates' is
>
>>>easily worth $500 in a comparison.
>>
>
> An all day job at 'skilled chef rates' can easily be worth a lot, yet
> this can't be taken as an argument to reject cooking at home.
>
> Building a machine is not for all situations, but when you want a
> machine that's tailored to your specific needs with a certain degree of
> quality, then building it can be a more efficient use of time and
> effort than twisting yourself to fit with a mass-produced one or
> cluelessly hassling with customer support about its faults.
>
> I also think a DIY built machine is likely to last longer because it's
> more likely upgradable.
>
>
>
>>I would suggest that if it takes all day for a person to assemble a
>
> PC,
>
>>then perhaps that person shouldn't be assembling their own PC. It's
>
> a
>
>>couple of hours, Max, for most enthusiasts, about an hour and a half,
>>max, for me.
>>
>>
>>>Now personally, I don't care if you DIY or not. Just please cut me
>
> a
>
>>>break and try to avoid insinuating that everyone else is wrong if
>
> they
>
>>>don't do a DIY as you did.
>>
>>DIY is far from being for everyone. In real life (as opposed to
>
> online)
>
>>I know few who are confident even to select components like MoBos.
>>
>>
>>>You may have paid a fraction of the cost, but I paid a fraction of
>
> the
>
>>>time. YMMV on which one is more valuable.
>>
>>When I can get a faster better machine cheaper by investing a few
>
> hours,
>
>>that CAN be worth it. For me anyway
>>
>>Lisa
>
>

One also gets control over the quality of components in the home-built,
which can be a factor in how long the computer can be useful.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam wrote:
> In article <c7v9v0595f79t8j56aig2b3f9j2h9runei@4ax.com>, rafe bustin
> <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> so is spending a little extra and having it work out of the box and a
> warranty if anything goes wrong.
>
> if something fails with your home built, who covers the repair? or is
> there fingerpointing such as 'our card works fine, it is your
> motherboard' ?
>
> again, it comes down to which is more expendable, money or time.
>
> > But not for everyone, that's for sure, and
> > it can be frustrating at times. OTOH, when
> > you are done you will know something about
> > the machine you'll be working on.
>
> knowledge of the machine is nice, but not a requirement to do
> productive work. just as knowing how an internal combustion engine
> works is handy if you break down on the highway but 99% of the
motoring
> public still manages to get to where they are going without such
> knowledge.

I wish I could've assembled my laptop or PDA the same way I assembled
my desktop PC. I guess same can be said for a digicam too; I would've
had complete choice over what type of batteries, memory, lcd,
viewfinder, sensor, controls, and so on.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Mac OS
> updates tend to be NOT compatible with older ones, and even the hardware
> support isn't compatible.
>
What the hell are you talking about??

--
John McWilliams

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> I highly personal choice.

?
I am quite technically capable of assembling
> my own computer, and setting up the software, I just don't get any
> pleasure out of such things any more, and have the money to buy a
> computer that is ready to plug and go.
>
Then you must be capbable of trimming your replies.

--
John McWilliams

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> I highly personal choice.
>
>
> ?
> I am quite technically capable of assembling
>
>> my own computer, and setting up the software, I just don't get any
>> pleasure out of such things any more, and have the money to buy a
>> computer that is ready to plug and go.
>>
> Then you must be capbable of trimming your replies.
>
Sure, but then I wouldn't have time to respond to 100 or most posts in
various newsgroups every day. If you are in too big a hurry to skip
down a page, feel free to skip my posts.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>In article <c7v9v0595f79t8j56aig2b3f9j2h9runei@4ax.com>, rafe bustin
>><rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>so is spending a little extra and having it work out of the box and a
>>warranty if anything goes wrong.
>>
>>if something fails with your home built, who covers the repair? or is
>>there fingerpointing such as 'our card works fine, it is your
>>motherboard' ?
>>
>>again, it comes down to which is more expendable, money or time.
>>
>>
>>>But not for everyone, that's for sure, and
>>>it can be frustrating at times. OTOH, when
>>>you are done you will know something about
>>>the machine you'll be working on.
>>
>>knowledge of the machine is nice, but not a requirement to do
>>productive work. just as knowing how an internal combustion engine
>>works is handy if you break down on the highway but 99% of the
>
> motoring
>
>>public still manages to get to where they are going without such
>>knowledge.
>
>
> I wish I could've assembled my laptop or PDA the same way I assembled
> my desktop PC. I guess same can be said for a digicam too; I would've
> had complete choice over what type of batteries, memory, lcd,
> viewfinder, sensor, controls, and so on.
>
Careful shopping can do much to get what you want, and need in the
laptop, however, controlling build quality depends on the company you
deal with.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <230120050952220452%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> An AMD product will never be the best choice of any contest.

*Yawn*

You're so out of touch, Randall.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-C1876B.07325024012005
@news.giganews.com>, {NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com
says...
> > I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
>
>
> I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who conveniently
> ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to invest
> more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the system.

Uh, only if you're a complete retard.

You can build a system with the parts you want in less time than it
takes to order one, get the item in wrong (3 times in a row once with
Dell) and cancel it out of frustration.

All sarcasm aside, it really doesn't take long to build a PC. An
afternoon, tops.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:48 GMT
In message <MPG.1c5f87eebba1cd9b98a4f1@news.verizon.net>
Posted from International Bastard, Intl.
Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:

> > > I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
> >
> > I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who conveniently
> > ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to invest
> > more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the system.
>
> Uh, only if you're a complete retard.
>
> You can build a system with the parts you want in less time than it
> takes to order one, get the item in wrong (3 times in a row once with
> Dell) and cancel it out of frustration.
>
> All sarcasm aside, it really doesn't take long to build a PC. An
> afternoon, tops.

I honestly hope you are never stricken with a neuro-muscular disease.
You have no idea how difficult using a screwdriver can be.

<plonk>

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:48 GMT
> In message <MPG.1c5f87eebba1cd9b98a4f1@news.verizon.net>
> Posted from International Bastard, Intl.
> Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>
>
>>>>I have an athlon64 i built myself for a fraction of that cost...
>>>
>>>I'm very sorry, but a pet peeve of mine are DIY'ers who conveniently
>>>ignore the trade-offs, such as that by paying less, they had to invest
>>>more of their personal free time to spec, buy & assemble the system.
>>
>>Uh, only if you're a complete retard.
>>
>>You can build a system with the parts you want in less time than it
>>takes to order one, get the item in wrong (3 times in a row once with
>>Dell) and cancel it out of frustration.
>>
>>All sarcasm aside, it really doesn't take long to build a PC. An
>>afternoon, tops.
>
>
> I honestly hope you are never stricken with a neuro-muscular disease.
> You have no idea how difficult using a screwdriver can be.
>
> <plonk>
>
> Jeff
I certainly hope he is not, either. I understand your position (I have
back problems myself), but please don't let your problems color your
responses as there is no way that he, or any of us, could know of your
situation. Also, the suggestions are for normally healthy people, not
the ill, and/or old among us.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I don't think a 6 year use life on an Apple is reasonable,
> > unless you don't mind having a lot of software and hardware
> > that won't run on your machine for the last 3 of those years..
>
> windows is not much different in this regard.
>
> > Mac OS updates tend to be NOT compatible with older
> > ones, and even the hardware support isn't compatible.

I'm sure that Ron can provide a few examples to back up his claim.
However, I disagree with it as a generalization; Apple has carried a lot
of backwards compatability in their OS, sometimes for probably longer
than they should have. For example, the Mac Plus was supported for
nearly 11 years: from 16 Jan 1986 until 23 Jan 1997 (OS 7.6).

And 'Classic' in OS X exists solely to provide backwards compatibility.

In fairness, there was a "bump" with Apple's G3 generation hardware in
the OS X transition, as support for it was dropped. However, we have to
remember that we're also talking about sub-500MHz PC's sold just before
CPU's really ramped up in speed. Try to install XP on an old 800MHz PC
and you'll discover very similar problems, including hardware registry.

Bottom line is that both OS's have had bumps in the road, with Apple's
has had a lot fewer potholes over the past 20 years.


> other than the mac os 9 to mac os x transition, which obsoleted a *lot*
> of software and hardware, macs can and do run for quite a number of
> years.

Overall, I've been very pleasantly surprised to find how much old stuff
still perseveres, even despite such major OS overhauls. For example,
MS-PowerPoint v4 (1997), Photoshop v4 (1996), MS-Word v5.1 (1992) all
still run fine (in Classic mode, of course).

Sure, I have stuff that doesn't run too, such as MS-Excel v4. The
general rule of thumb of broken App's is that the writer likely chose to
disregard interface standards; one common example is to bypass the OS
interface to interface directly to hardware. This isn't unique to Apple
by a long shot. If anything, writers learned to trust and follow
Apple's design guide more than Microsoft's because they found that Apple
wouldn't just capreciously go break stuff on them. Just go ask Lotus.


> old machines (mac or pc) might not be the best choice for something
> like rendering digital video and burning it to a dvd, but they are
> still quite usable.
>
> most any computer starts to show its age after 2-3 years. lots of new
> software assumes the latest and greatest, and might not be optimal.
> but the old stuff keeps on chugging just fine.

We do need to keep in mind that the performance of a hardware/software
combination does not get slower as a PC ages, so if its good today, it
will continue to be good for weeks/months/years.

Where the generic "PC slowdown" complaints occur is when the OS or
Application is "updated" to a new revision that does more and has higher
computational demands. This is a mixed blessing, for if you don't
need/use the new features, all you've really done is reduce your system
performance.



-hh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> You consider 8 hours in 3 years significant.

I consider starting out 8 hours "down" and never catching up to be
what's significant.


> One can configure WinXP to download, and install, updates
> automatically now.

Ditto for OS X.


> Kind of defeats your argument.

This approach can only be applied if:
a) You have a 24/7 internet connection.
b) You implicitly trust every Microsoft patch.
c) You don't mind having an App crash without warning due to a patch.

FWIW, I deal with the XP nonsense on a daily basis. When it comes to
spending my own money, I'll pay more for alternatives to it. When Adobe
publishes a copy of Photoshop that runs on Linux, let me know.


-hh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wish I could've assembled my laptop or PDA the same way I assembled
> my desktop PC. I guess same can be said for a digicam too; I would've
> had complete choice over what type of batteries, memory, lcd,
> viewfinder, sensor, controls, and so on.

But gosh, you can do that today. It just takes a machine shop to
fabricate the hardware, and optics bench, a computer lab, etc, etc.

....which means it simply won't also be cheaper too.

You simply need to decide what it is that you really want.



-hh

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:23:40 -0600
In message <MonJd.14900$0O2.14826@fe06.lga>
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> >>All sarcasm aside, it really doesn't take long to build a PC. An
> >>afternoon, tops.
> >
> >
> > I honestly hope you are never stricken with a neuro-muscular disease.
> > You have no idea how difficult using a screwdriver can be.
> >
> > <plonk>
> >
> > Jeff
>
> I certainly hope he is not, either. I understand your position (I have
> back problems myself), but please don't let your problems color your
> responses as there is no way that he, or any of us, could know of your
> situation. Also, the suggestions are for normally healthy people, not
> the ill, and/or old among us.

I wrote without putting it into proper perspective. I've
always had zero tolerance for computer literate people who think that
everyone and anyone could build a computer. I've been there, done
that, and was involved with many successful hardware and software
products.

One thing became very clear over the years: Only about 2% of
the user base (from music synthesizers to computer hardware to <gasp>
XP) is of the "roll up the sleeves and dig in" type. Most people are
not (and should not have to be) capable of building a computer. The
learning curve is huge, especially when they finally get it to boot
and then attempt to install and configure an OS.

My knee-jerk reaction was from the perspective of being in the
98% category after spending years creating things everyone reading
this uses. His remarks are extremely insulting to the majority of
readers.

Jeff