What makes a mac better?

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics, I've
never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
quality is unmatched."

Interestingly, a graphic file is nothing more than a bunch of data that
describes where each pixel goes and what colour that pixel should be, and,
in the case of 32 bit images, how transparent that pixel is set.

The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.

Basically the hardware is responsible for storing that data and getting
those bits of info into memory, where the software works with the data.
Then, the hardware takes the data in memory and displays it on a screen.
The hardware is really only responsible for moving the data around, not for
creating it or creatively processing it.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do the
job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

I wonder why that is...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, Dudley Hanks wrote:

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics,
I've never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the
mac quality is unmatched."

Interestingly, a graphic file is nothing more than a bunch of data that
describes where each pixel goes and what colour that pixel should be,
and, in the case of 32 bit images, how transparent that pixel is set.

The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.

Basically the hardware is responsible for storing that data and getting
those bits of info into memory, where the software works with the data.
Then, the hardware takes the data in memory and displays it on a screen.
The hardware is really only responsible for moving the data around, not
for creating it or creatively processing it.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do
the job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer
shades of red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the
user of the camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does
into mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

I wonder why that is...

Take Care,
Dudley

IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

"ray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, Dudley Hanks wrote:

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics,
I've never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the
mac quality is unmatched."

Interestingly, a graphic file is nothing more than a bunch of data that
describes where each pixel goes and what colour that pixel should be,
and, in the case of 32 bit images, how transparent that pixel is set.

The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.

Basically the hardware is responsible for storing that data and getting
those bits of info into memory, where the software works with the data.
Then, the hardware takes the data in memory and displays it on a screen.
The hardware is really only responsible for moving the data around, not
for creating it or creatively processing it.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do
the job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer
shades of red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the
user of the camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does
into mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

I wonder why that is...

Take Care,
Dudley

IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

Actually, I rather like various unix versions, as well, but most aren't all
that accessible.

That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
offshoot of unix as the OS.

Take Care,
Dudley

On 2012.08.26 11:43 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics, I've
never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
quality is unmatched."

That notion is pre-2000 ish. It is no longer a point in favour of Mac.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do the
job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making
them underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not
at the processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact
someone sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed
16M colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only
capable of 260 thousand or so.

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

AFAIK Elements is identical in function on both platforms. I may be
wrong. ( I use CS5).

The value in a Mac is that it is a more streamlined, simple OS that
tends to work very consistently. Its security model (UNIX based) is
clear and concise.

This still allows the user to do stupid things, but if he operates from
a non admin account, then there are few ways that malware can get in -
and then only at a level that cannot cause much damage. The unaware
user can still get malware in to admin "level", but it takes the effort
of permitting it (or always running from an admin account - a no-no).

Hence, the relatively low population of Macs and the robustness of the
security module make it a poor target for malware. (There is a serious
attack every year or 2 in recent years. They affect a low number of
Macs ( the user is always the weak link ) and are quickly eradicated
after causing little or no damage. Apple to their discredit are always
slow to issue fixes.

It is fair to say because OS X is built for Apple computers alone, that
the OS/drivers and such need only to account for a narrower range of
hardware. That reduces complexity and likelihood of problems.

In terms of configuration, setup and fixing problems it is an order of
magnitude less frustration and time waste than Windows. Windows is
plain ugly in structure and functions. It is bolt-on after trusses and
suspenders and other things unmentionable, even by me.

The value of putting on malware protection is very low. The paranoid
and careless use it. I've never installed any. (I also run Windows on
my Mac under VMWare Fusion and that instance of WinXP has AVG Free
anti-virus).

The hardware for equivalent function is usually more expensive. The
setup I have now, were it a PC _with a high quality monitor_, would be
under $1200-$1300 - far less than this iMac alone, never mind the side
monitor that I have (a cheapie). OTOH this iMac is 4.5 years old. I
had to replace a failing HD at just shy of 3 years. This iMac performs
well enough for my photo needs and will for a while. I have upgrade
lust but I can hold that off. (New a99 camera coming soon...)

In laptops, the high end machines are not much more expensive than the
high end PC laptops.

The industry press tests show Apple hardware to be significantly higher
quality/reliability than the PC average, but only marginally better than
the best PC vendor hardware. As always you don't get what you don't pay
for.

For my personal computer I can't see going back to PC's and Windows.

For anyone contemplating the switch to Mac, look very carefully at your
overall software on your PC, how much you need it and are their
equivalents or substitutes on the Mac. You can always install Parallels
or VMWare Fusion (or the freeware one). That is fine for run of the
mill software but if you're into PC based games it probably won't be
quite enough (you can also bootcamp your way to Windows - I've never
tried it though).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012.08.26 11:43 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics,
I've
never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
quality is unmatched."

That notion is pre-2000 ish. It is no longer a point in favour of Mac.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do
the
job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making them
underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not at the
processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact someone
sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed 16M
colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only capable of
260 thousand or so.

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does
into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

AFAIK Elements is identical in function on both platforms. I may be
wrong. ( I use CS5).

The value in a Mac is that it is a more streamlined, simple OS that tends
to work very consistently. Its security model (UNIX based) is clear and
concise.

This still allows the user to do stupid things, but if he operates from a
non admin account, then there are few ways that malware can get in - and
then only at a level that cannot cause much damage. The unaware user can
still get malware in to admin "level", but it takes the effort of
permitting it (or always running from an admin account - a no-no).

Hence, the relatively low population of Macs and the robustness of the
security module make it a poor target for malware. (There is a serious
attack every year or 2 in recent years. They affect a low number of Macs
( the user is always the weak link ) and are quickly eradicated after
causing little or no damage. Apple to their discredit are always slow to
issue fixes.

It is fair to say because OS X is built for Apple computers alone, that
the OS/drivers and such need only to account for a narrower range of
hardware. That reduces complexity and likelihood of problems.

In terms of configuration, setup and fixing problems it is an order of
magnitude less frustration and time waste than Windows. Windows is plain
ugly in structure and functions. It is bolt-on after trusses and
suspenders and other things unmentionable, even by me.

The value of putting on malware protection is very low. The paranoid and
careless use it. I've never installed any. (I also run Windows on my Mac
under VMWare Fusion and that instance of WinXP has AVG Free anti-virus).

The hardware for equivalent function is usually more expensive. The setup
I have now, were it a PC _with a high quality monitor_, would be under
$1200-$1300 - far less than this iMac alone, never mind the side monitor
that I have (a cheapie). OTOH this iMac is 4.5 years old. I had to
replace a failing HD at just shy of 3 years. This iMac performs well
enough for my photo needs and will for a while. I have upgrade lust but I
can hold that off. (New a99 camera coming soon...)

In laptops, the high end machines are not much more expensive than the
high end PC laptops.

The industry press tests show Apple hardware to be significantly higher
quality/reliability than the PC average, but only marginally better than
the best PC vendor hardware. As always you don't get what you don't pay
for.

For my personal computer I can't see going back to PC's and Windows.

For anyone contemplating the switch to Mac, look very carefully at your
overall software on your PC, how much you need it and are their
equivalents or substitutes on the Mac. You can always install Parallels
or VMWare Fusion (or the freeware one). That is fine for run of the mill
software but if you're into PC based games it probably won't be quite
enough (you can also bootcamp your way to Windows - I've never tried it
though).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

When I picked up my version of Adobe Elements, there was no equivalent mac
version. At that time, Adobe was about 2 versions behind in mac-based
Elements, and there was talk that Adobe might be discontinuing support for
Elements on macs altogether.

I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
systems, but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
superiority are all that accurate.

Given that mac lovers tend to be more zealous than those in the PC family,
I'd chalk up longer lived apples to increased tlc by owners.

PCs get chucked around pretty good by everybody from the family kids to
low-level employees who dream of better jobs instead of attention to detail.

But, increased security / (possibly) durability have very little to do with
great graphics...

Take Care,
Dudley

On 2012.08.26 11:51 , ray wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600, Dudley Hanks wrote:

I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics,
I've never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the
mac quality is unmatched."

Interestingly, a graphic file is nothing more than a bunch of data that
describes where each pixel goes and what colour that pixel should be,
and, in the case of 32 bit images, how transparent that pixel is set.

The "computer" uses software instructions to process those bits of info.

Basically the hardware is responsible for storing that data and getting
those bits of info into memory, where the software works with the data.
Then, the hardware takes the data in memory and displays it on a screen.
The hardware is really only responsible for moving the data around, not
for creating it or creatively processing it.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do
the job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer
shades of red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the
user of the camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does
into mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

I wonder why that is...

Take Care,
Dudley

IMHO - you've made an invalid assumption. For me neither mac or ms is
best - Linux all the way. Stability and security unsurpassed.

Linux has been the NEXT THING since about 2000 - at that point in time
it had "arrived" as a desktop environment for the masses. It was going
to replace Windows outright and possibly turn off Apple's lights.

Sure Wilbur.

As a home/office desktop environment it absolutely sucks. And that is
why only geeks use it for such.

For ****s sake it is FREE! ... and only has a couple percent of the
desktop market. If something is so ridiculously good and free, everone
should be using it. (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter - all very
good to their users and free and immensely popular [no I don't use
facebook or Twitter])

Yet people pay MS' ridiculous premium prices for MS Windows (and pay for
malware protection too) and eschew Linux.

It has utterly failed to take on the home/office after a 10+ years assault.

The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of the
issue. (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of horse
dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").

Mountain Lion (upgrade) is $20. And that one (downloaded update)
payment applies to ALL the Macs in a house. Got 15 intel Macs? Fine
load 'em all up. And there are no idiotic feature levels like Windows
(except the OS X server, an additional $20).

Linux is for industrial, embedded, databases, super-computing and so on.
It is horrid as a desktop home/office machine. Yes I've been there.
Useless.

Your "stability and security unsurpassed" claim is specious too. Indeed
with the encrypted volume scheme on a Mac the hard disk is effectively
scrambled at all times that the key is not loaded. That's secure. As
to malware prevention Linux's sole advantage is that it is not targetted
as much as Windows.

Linux (like OS X) depends on the user to keep the barbarians out of the
gate. A well written attack with a dash of social engineering will get
malware in there. But I guess malware writers consider Linux to be too
lean, too savvy and especially too poor to bother attacking.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.08.26 12:00 , Dudley Hanks wrote:

That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
offshoot of unix as the OS.

It is no offshoot.
It is UNIX.
BSD based.
POSIX Compliant.
UNIX 03 certified.

You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
separately installed).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.08.26 12:30 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012.08.26 11:43 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
I've always found the Apple / Mac versus the IBM / Windows debate rather
interesting...

Supporters on both sides say their brand choice is best, but why?

In the case of macs supposedly being superior at processing graphics,
I've
never heard what it is about macs that is so great, other than "the mac
quality is unmatched."

That notion is pre-2000 ish. It is no longer a point in favour of Mac.

All mac enthusiasts can really cheer about is whether their boxes can do
the
job quicker, or, at best, that their monitors might have nicer shades of
red, green and blue. All the creative work gets done by the user of the
camera (not mac), and in post processing (usually Adobe).

Ironically, several recent macs display color at 6 bits/colour making them
underwhelming compared to many displays on the market. This is not at the
processing/graphics card level but at the display level. In fact someone
sued Apple over the assertion that the Mac in question displayed 16M
colours (whatever the number) when in fact the display was only capable of
260 thousand or so.

Interestingly, Adobe seems to put more work into Windows than it does
into
mac, at least it does when Adobe Elements is concerned.

AFAIK Elements is identical in function on both platforms. I may be
wrong. ( I use CS5).

The value in a Mac is that it is a more streamlined, simple OS that tends
to work very consistently. Its security model (UNIX based) is clear and
concise.

This still allows the user to do stupid things, but if he operates from a
non admin account, then there are few ways that malware can get in - and
then only at a level that cannot cause much damage. The unaware user can
still get malware in to admin "level", but it takes the effort of
permitting it (or always running from an admin account - a no-no).

Hence, the relatively low population of Macs and the robustness of the
security module make it a poor target for malware. (There is a serious
attack every year or 2 in recent years. They affect a low number of Macs
( the user is always the weak link ) and are quickly eradicated after
causing little or no damage. Apple to their discredit are always slow to
issue fixes.

It is fair to say because OS X is built for Apple computers alone, that
the OS/drivers and such need only to account for a narrower range of
hardware. That reduces complexity and likelihood of problems.

In terms of configuration, setup and fixing problems it is an order of
magnitude less frustration and time waste than Windows. Windows is plain
ugly in structure and functions. It is bolt-on after trusses and
suspenders and other things unmentionable, even by me.

The value of putting on malware protection is very low. The paranoid and
careless use it. I've never installed any. (I also run Windows on my Mac
under VMWare Fusion and that instance of WinXP has AVG Free anti-virus).

The hardware for equivalent function is usually more expensive. The setup
I have now, were it a PC _with a high quality monitor_, would be under
$1200-$1300 - far less than this iMac alone, never mind the side monitor
that I have (a cheapie). OTOH this iMac is 4.5 years old. I had to
replace a failing HD at just shy of 3 years. This iMac performs well
enough for my photo needs and will for a while. I have upgrade lust but I
can hold that off. (New a99 camera coming soon...)

In laptops, the high end machines are not much more expensive than the
high end PC laptops.

The industry press tests show Apple hardware to be significantly higher
quality/reliability than the PC average, but only marginally better than
the best PC vendor hardware. As always you don't get what you don't pay
for.

For my personal computer I can't see going back to PC's and Windows.

For anyone contemplating the switch to Mac, look very carefully at your
overall software on your PC, how much you need it and are their
equivalents or substitutes on the Mac. You can always install Parallels
or VMWare Fusion (or the freeware one). That is fine for run of the mill
software but if you're into PC based games it probably won't be quite
enough (you can also bootcamp your way to Windows - I've never tried it
though).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

When I picked up my version of Adobe Elements, there was no equivalent mac
version. At that time, Adobe was about 2 versions behind in mac-based
Elements, and there was talk that Adobe might be discontinuing support for
Elements on macs altogether.

I'll agree that UNIX based systems are more secure than similar Windows
systems, but I'm not convinced that those reports of apple durability
superiority are all that accurate.

They are - to my surprise. I believe "nospam" posted some reports on it
in one of the photo ng's during an interminable battle with Tony Cooper.

But as I said, when you buy the better PC hardware vendors, the
difference becomes marginal. That said, I've had PC's that have lasted
near a decade and were still fine when I got rid of them. (Last one had
a mother board failure after a mere 6 years however).

It's not on this basis alone that anyone should make a decision, but
rather to say that Macs are very well designed and built (I have some
reservations on that in terms of accessing a HD on an iMac, for example).

Given that mac lovers tend to be more zealous than those in the PC family,
I'd chalk up longer lived apples to increased tlc by owners.

Mac fans are irritating to be sure - look at me. They are frustrated
that everyone doesn't rush to the one true faith. Perhaps only Linux
wingnuts are worse.

PC users on the other hand are somewhat trapped into what they use at
home, what they use at work and so on.

That said, since the iPod and iPhone revolution the Mac (esp. the iMac
and laptops) have enjoyed a huge growth in sales (the 'halo effect').
And even in the last 2 years as desktop sales slowed, the iMac kept
growing in sales (began slowing 2 quarters ago).

PCs get chucked around pretty good by everybody from the family kids to
low-level employees who dream of better jobs instead of attention to detail.

Same with Macs. I recall a year or so ago at a party there were Macs
running all over the house. Youngest kid - oldest Mac. They spanned
back into the pre OS X days. That says something.

I confess that last half of your sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.

But, increased security / (possibly) durability have very little to do with
great graphics...

Your question was "what makes a Mac better?" I listed some things.

What I failed to write is that Mac displays are very nice and well
suited to photography. Soon after buying this iMac I borrowed a spider
and calibrated it. The result was so close to the factory default that
I left it at factory. Re-cal a year late showed no real change (more
variation in the calibration process than in the annual change - if any).

An iMac may be comparatively expensive to a PC kit, but the display
provided is way better than the monitor provided with, eg, the hp kit on
sale at Staples this week.

Again, re-read my last paragraph. That is really what anyone must
understand before switching.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012.08.26 12:00 , Dudley Hanks wrote:

That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
offshoot of unix as the OS.

It is no offshoot.
It is UNIX.
BSD based.
POSIX Compliant.
UNIX 03 certified.

You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
separately installed).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

Now for some legal bull****. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group
.. From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
unix is, they would agree with me that it's a description of the function of
a family of operating systems, but they would also add ``that we have
certified to be UNIX''. So legally, it's not a UNIX unless The Open Group
certifies it as a UNIX. So a lot of those operating systems I listed as
unices are not UNIXes. It's a thoroughly sad case of legalities getting in
the way of simplicity & sanity.

Anyway, I say that if an operating system behaves like unix, then it's a
unix, though not necessarily a UNIX(TM).

--From: http://sdf.org/tutorials/unx/node4.html

Take Care,
Dudley

On 2012.08.26 13:01 , Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012.08.26 12:00 , Dudley Hanks wrote:

That's the one thing I do like about macs: that they tend to use an
offshoot of unix as the OS.

It is no offshoot.
It is UNIX.
BSD based.
POSIX Compliant.
UNIX 03 certified.

You can run UNIX s/w directly on a Mac, including applications that use
the X11 GUI environment. (From Mountain Lion on, X11 will have to be
separately installed).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

Now for some bull****. ``UNIX'' is a trademark of The Open Group
. From what I can infer from their web site about their opinions of what
unix is,

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/c...ates/1190p.pdf

(there are also certificates for prior OS X releases back through Leopard).

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.