Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

On 5/17/11 6:30 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

For a long time, that was the case. It isn't today: A Intel-based Mac is
perfectly capable of doing anything that a Pee-Cee box can do, usually
faster. This is due to virtualization software like Parallels or VM Fusion.

Virtual machines are never as fast as real machines,

it's a negligible speed hit. except in a few edge cases (3d gaming), it
won't even be noticeable.

and if you want to run
Windows applications, it makes absolutely no sense to run them in virtualized
environments under a different OS when you can simply run them as native apps
under Windows.

actually it makes a lot of sense. i can run windows, mac and unix apps
side by side, at the same time, sharing files or copy/pasting between
apps.

So that argument is passé.

No argument is needed. It makes no logical sense to run Windows apps on a
Mac,
so running Windows apps on Windows is the default.

wrong.

Absolutely wrong. But it's just the propeller-head geek in our friend that
won't let him understand the truth.

VCR's were great for their times, too...

On 5/17/11 6:30 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Prior to Windows NT, it wasn't very secure, but Windows NT is the most secure
operating system in common use for desktops and network servers. This is
built
directly into the architecture. XP inherited this.

you can't be serious. that is the most ludicrous thing i've read in a
while.

I'm beginning to think he's a 'leg puller'. I about spit up my coffee on my
keyboard when I read that!

On 5/17/2011 3:21 PM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:29:07 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 5/17/2011 11:12 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:

Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters.
It would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
anti-virus software vendors. They target MS because it is used
extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others
put together.

They target Windows because it has so many security holes.

If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that
have targeted Linux and OSx.

I don't know about OSx, but there has never been a successful virus
that targets Linux. The ones that claim to be are not successful,
simply because they cannot replicate and spread on their own. The only
way to get "infected" is to purposely install it.

That's the same as claiming the command "sudo rm -rf /" is a virus.
It's not, it's just a possible stupidity.


I don't usually like to use the WICKI, but read for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware

Firstly Wicki can be written by anyone and so is not reliable.

Absolutely true. Which is exactly why I prefaced my remark as I did.


Secondly I
have been using various linux distros for something like 8 years or so
(starting with Mandrake) and have never seen a virus on any of the distros
I have used. I do use a firewall and do NOT allow any other computer
access to mine. I do have windows on my laptop alongside Fedora 14 for
when I visit my daughter.

The only virus that I have personally heard of for linux was just an
experimental one that was not successful in the wild.


I have been using Linux for longer than that. It is possible to write a
virus, though for many years nobody released one in the wild. I have met
virus writers. While I cannot disclose personal information, their
motives ranged from they do it because they can, they have mental
issues, including a virulent hatred of MS and a compulsion to disrupt
business.

--
Peter

On 5/17/2011 4:05 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
George Kerby writes:

For a long time, that was the case. It isn't today: A Intel-based Mac is
perfectly capable of doing anything that a Pee-Cee box can do, usually
faster. This is due to virtualization software like Parallels or VM Fusion.

Virtual machines are never as fast as real machines, and if you want to run
Windows applications, it makes absolutely no sense to run them in virtualized
environments under a different OS when you can simply run them as native apps
under Windows.

So that argument is passé.

No argument is needed. It makes no logical sense to run Windows apps on a Mac,
so running Windows apps on Windows is the default.

If the user happens to own a Mac and needs to run a Windows app for
business, it makes all the sense in the world.

I know several people who work at home a few days a week. The works
needs to be compatible with the machines in the office.


--
Peter

nospam wrote:
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Yeah, sure. Just out of the box and plugged in. No anti-virus software at
all... right fanboi?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes.

bull****.

He got it "conntected" to the Internet alright... via a router/firewall
that just happens to run Linux.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

George Kerby wrote:
On 5/17/11 6:30 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Prior to Windows NT, it wasn't very secure, but Windows NT is the most secure
operating system in common use for desktops and network servers. This is
built
directly into the architecture. XP inherited this.

you can't be serious. that is the most ludicrous thing i've read in a
while.

I'm beginning to think he's a 'leg puller'. I about spit up my coffee on my
keyboard when I read that!

He's just a fanboi.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

portability is a *huge* advantage, and nothing prevents anyone from
having both a laptop and a desktop, as most people do.

It _might_ be a huge advantage; that depends on the user. If it's a huge
advantage, then maybe the drawbacks are justified; if it's not, they aren't.

of course it depends on the user. for every drawback there's another
advantage. different tools for different jobs.

If I need to use a computer, I prefer to sit in front of it. If I'm not in
front of my computer, I'm not using it.

that's good for you but you aren't the only person in this world. most
people want portability, which is reflected in sales. laptops and
mobile devices are selling much more than desktops, a trend that's
increasing.

A laptop is ergonomically difficult to
tolerate when one has been spoiled by desktops.

nonsense. laptops can be used anywhere - on a couch, in bed, in a
reclining chair, on the porch, etc. people are no longer limited to
being stuck at a desk in a chair.

some people plug in a larger display to their laptop, and depending on
the laptop, use both displays at the same time.

They'll also need to plug in a different keyboard and mouse, unless they are
four feet tall.

nonsense again. the internal keyboard and trackpad work just fine
(regardless of how tall one is, seriously, wtf?), but they can use
external ones if they want. or both.

what drawbacks are those?

You can't build your own.

few people build their own computers, so that's not an issue.

You cannot get the same performance at the same
price point.

performance is more than adequate for what most people do and you get
*other* features, like being able to take it to a photo shoot and
showing photos just taken (with adjustments), doing work on a plane,
giving presentations, etc.

good luck lugging a desktop to a photo shoot or a conference, and where
will you plug it in on that hike up the mountain (assuming you can
carry it up the mountain)?

All components are more expensive, less performant, and more
prone to failure.

not necessarily.

The list is quite long, which is why I've never owned a
laptop of my own (and I've only reluctantly carried around company laptops,
which I try not to use).

yes, that part is clear. you're talking out your ass.

... modern laptops outperform desktops of just a
year or two ago, which for most people is already overkill. very few
people have 8-12 core behemoths on their desk.

Unless they are editing photos or videos.

you don't need 8-12 core to edit photos and that's also overkill for
the videos most people do (youtube type stuff). high end video
production will have high end computers *and* laptops.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 14:25:09 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

So how comes so many people use Firefox instead of IE?

Many people think it's better, although IE still leads. But Firefox was not an
option when manufacturers were forced to offer machines without IE, as I
recall.

MS was forced to offer machines without IE, but OEMs were
free to add IE or Firefox or Opera or ...

And MS could well have included Firefox, but didn't.

Why should they? after they had spent all the time and effort killing
Netscape, from the ashes of which Firefox grew.

--- snip ---

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Please follow the thread. I made the first comment about sick virus
writers who target MS. The response was that OSx and Linux are immune.
Clearly a diversionary statement clearly designed to change the topic.

straw man. nobody said they're immune, but that it's significantly
harder to do and so far, the only malware is user installed.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 13:03:55 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Apple, on the other hand, controls everything. It's Apple's way or the
highway. Nobody else builds compatible hardware,

Well they do I've often brought products not made by Apple that work
with my
Macs. iomega drives, western digital drives, Espon printer and scanner
etc.....

If a company follows Apples 'rules' for hardware and software then
that product
will work with Apple computers. Actually intel produce chips
specifically for Apple last
I heard.

there is no 'apple rule' for hardware makers. apple (like a lot of
companies) support industry standards: sata, pci, usb, firewire, dvi,
displayport, 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth, etc.

if a product is compliant with a given standard, it will work with a
mac.

Not now so. See
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/13/n...ce-of-servici/
and
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/05/...-the-2011-imac

Regards,

Eric Stevens