Photography is bunk
Last response: in Digital Camera
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
More about : photography bunk
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> >I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
> so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
> dud.
>
Sheesh, I can see it. It's very clear if you care to look.
This is called simultaneous contrast. I remember an example in a book
where a gray looked green. It was incredible.
Here's a neat monochrome example of simultaneous contrast.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Contras...
There are plenty more examples online. Google "simultaneous contrast".
>
> >
> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> >I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
> so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
> dud.
>
Sheesh, I can see it. It's very clear if you care to look.
This is called simultaneous contrast. I remember an example in a book
where a gray looked green. It was incredible.
Here's a neat monochrome example of simultaneous contrast.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Contras...
There are plenty more examples online. Google "simultaneous contrast".
>
> >
> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
There are thousands of paintings that lay that one flat in terms of
painters mastery of light. Vermeer and his contemporaries for a very
mild example.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
There are thousands of paintings that lay that one flat in terms of
painters mastery of light. Vermeer and his contemporaries for a very
mild example.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
If photography is bunk, how did he get the painting into a JPG? Huh? HUH??
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
If photography is bunk, how did he get the painting into a JPG? Huh? HUH??
Related ressources
- Product comparisons - Forum
- Is it freaking Canon Day or something? - Forum
- big offenses - Forum
- Want to buy a new digital camera to replace my Nikon 5700,.. - Forum
- Www kodak com/go/cameras - Forum
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 16:24:20 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> >> On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >> >
> >> >I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> >> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >>
> >> Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
> >> so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
> >> dud.
> >>
> >
> >Sheesh, I can see it. It's very clear if you care to look.
>
> "It's not readily apparent in this image" -- his own words.
>
Not readily apparent, his words, is different from "barely
perceptible", yours. Big difference.
>
> >
> >This is called simultaneous contrast. I remember an example in a book
> >where a gray looked green. It was incredible.
> >
> >Here's a neat monochrome example of simultaneous contrast.
> >http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Contras...
> >
> >There are plenty more examples online. Google "simultaneous contrast".
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 16:24:20 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> >> On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >> >
> >> >I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> >> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >>
> >> Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
> >> so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
> >> dud.
> >>
> >
> >Sheesh, I can see it. It's very clear if you care to look.
>
> "It's not readily apparent in this image" -- his own words.
>
Not readily apparent, his words, is different from "barely
perceptible", yours. Big difference.
>
> >
> >This is called simultaneous contrast. I remember an example in a book
> >where a gray looked green. It was incredible.
> >
> >Here's a neat monochrome example of simultaneous contrast.
> >http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Contras...
> >
> >There are plenty more examples online. Google "simultaneous contrast".
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Gene Palmiter wrote:
> This artwork is good...but it says no more about photography than it says
> about sculpture, music, architecture or any other art.
>
Of course it does. Much more.
Photography is a visual art on a picture plane, just like painting. A
process of capturing in two dimensions the likeness of a
three-dimensional world. That's *not* how it is for sculpture, music,
architecture or any other art.
I'm reminded of Ernst Haas who said "Leica, schmeica. The camera
doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are
seeing. But, you have to see."
The elements of art in photography are borrowed from a long tradition
of painting, and they're not different, in fact, they're just
dumbified, often too dumbified.
I spent a lot of time in bookshops and the library in between the
photography section and the painting one. They share the same basic
topics, but a startling difference in the quality of description. As
far as the skill of "seeing" is concerned, the painting literature far
excels in this that an attempt at comparison would be ridiculous. In
photography, you can get away with clicking the shutter and then
congratulate yourself on an illiterate, mediocre result, but in
painting, unless you "see" in essence and detail what it is you're
trying to paint you won't be able to capture it on the picture plane;
without "seeing", not a chance. Over time, you learn quite a lot from
painting, because you have to, whereas from photography you can
maintain a momentum of mindless mediocrity, unfortunately too evident
for many.
And then, besides "seeing", there is also interpretation, impression or
expression. Again, the painting literature far excels in this.
I am of the conviction now that any photographer however experienced
would find immense benefit in the study of painting and at least a
little practice of it.
> --
> Thanks,
> Gene Palmiter
> (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
> freebridge design group
> www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> > I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
> >
Gene Palmiter wrote:
> This artwork is good...but it says no more about photography than it says
> about sculpture, music, architecture or any other art.
>
Of course it does. Much more.
Photography is a visual art on a picture plane, just like painting. A
process of capturing in two dimensions the likeness of a
three-dimensional world. That's *not* how it is for sculpture, music,
architecture or any other art.
I'm reminded of Ernst Haas who said "Leica, schmeica. The camera
doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are
seeing. But, you have to see."
The elements of art in photography are borrowed from a long tradition
of painting, and they're not different, in fact, they're just
dumbified, often too dumbified.
I spent a lot of time in bookshops and the library in between the
photography section and the painting one. They share the same basic
topics, but a startling difference in the quality of description. As
far as the skill of "seeing" is concerned, the painting literature far
excels in this that an attempt at comparison would be ridiculous. In
photography, you can get away with clicking the shutter and then
congratulate yourself on an illiterate, mediocre result, but in
painting, unless you "see" in essence and detail what it is you're
trying to paint you won't be able to capture it on the picture plane;
without "seeing", not a chance. Over time, you learn quite a lot from
painting, because you have to, whereas from photography you can
maintain a momentum of mindless mediocrity, unfortunately too evident
for many.
And then, besides "seeing", there is also interpretation, impression or
expression. Again, the painting literature far excels in this.
I am of the conviction now that any photographer however experienced
would find immense benefit in the study of painting and at least a
little practice of it.
> --
> Thanks,
> Gene Palmiter
> (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
> freebridge design group
> www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> > I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
> >
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Alan Browne wrote:
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> > I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
>
> There are thousands of paintings that lay that one flat in terms of
> painters mastery of light. Vermeer and his contemporaries for a very
> mild example.
>
Hey, the old masters were gods. I see no harm in admiring mere mortals
to whose skill I may aspire. What I like most about his paintings is
that there is a simplicity to them, they're almost like illustrations -
quite modern in a way.
Speaking of the old masters, and mastery of light, I was looking at
caravaggio's paintings the other day - amazing nighttime stuff! Look up
caravaggio on google images.
>
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Alan Browne wrote:
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> > I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
>
> There are thousands of paintings that lay that one flat in terms of
> painters mastery of light. Vermeer and his contemporaries for a very
> mild example.
>
Hey, the old masters were gods. I see no harm in admiring mere mortals
to whose skill I may aspire. What I like most about his paintings is
that there is a simplicity to them, they're almost like illustrations -
quite modern in a way.
Speaking of the old masters, and mastery of light, I was looking at
caravaggio's paintings the other day - amazing nighttime stuff! Look up
caravaggio on google images.
>
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing
This is one gifted person.
Duncan.
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing
This is one gifted person.
Duncan.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
>I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
dud.
>
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
>I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
dud.
>
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
This artwork is good...but it says no more about photography than it says
about sculpture, music, architecture or any other art.
--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
This artwork is good...but it says no more about photography than it says
about sculpture, music, architecture or any other art.
--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On 29 Aug 2005 16:24:20 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>> >
>> >I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>>
>> Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
>> so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
>> dud.
>>
>
>Sheesh, I can see it. It's very clear if you care to look.
"It's not readily apparent in this image" -- his own words.
>
>This is called simultaneous contrast. I remember an example in a book
>where a gray looked green. It was incredible.
>
>Here's a neat monochrome example of simultaneous contrast.
>http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Contras...
>
>There are plenty more examples online. Google "simultaneous contrast".
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
On 29 Aug 2005 16:24:20 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2005 14:12:28 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>> >
>> >I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>>
>> Great example of a teacher -- I'm interested in paint colors,
>> so here's an example where it's barely perceptible. Sheesh, what a
>> dud.
>>
>
>Sheesh, I can see it. It's very clear if you care to look.
"It's not readily apparent in this image" -- his own words.
>
>This is called simultaneous contrast. I remember an example in a book
>where a gray looked green. It was incredible.
>
>Here's a neat monochrome example of simultaneous contrast.
>http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Contras...
>
>There are plenty more examples online. Google "simultaneous contrast".
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
>I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Technically impressive but without much depth or feeling.
IMO.
(I only play an art critic online)
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
>I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Technically impressive but without much depth or feeling.
IMO.
(I only play an art critic online)
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com says...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
Maybe Alfonse didn't like it.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
In article <1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com says...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
Maybe Alfonse didn't like it.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
It is simplistic and inept, yet a portrait costs at least $12,000.
No wonder you are impressed.
;-)
casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
It is simplistic and inept, yet a portrait costs at least $12,000.
No wonder you are impressed.
;-)
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Yes, yes.. they are great paintings. But comparing photography to painting
is like comparing apples to oranges. It's really comes down to a matter of:
Which do you prefer? And it's OK to like both..
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125349948.482667.217260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>
> I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>
> http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
Yes, yes.. they are great paintings. But comparing photography to painting
is like comparing apples to oranges. It's really comes down to a matter of:
Which do you prefer? And it's OK to like both..
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On 30 Aug 2005 14:35:57 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:01 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You clicked on an unidentified link sent by a stranger?
>>
>> I usually wait for a few responses that indicate it's a genuine link
>> to a real site without viruses. It's worked so far.
>
>Get firefox and prevx.
I use Firefox. Don't need Prevx.
I take precautions, one of which I shared above.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On 30 Aug 2005 14:35:57 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:01 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You clicked on an unidentified link sent by a stranger?
>>
>> I usually wait for a few responses that indicate it's a genuine link
>> to a real site without viruses. It's worked so far.
>
>Get firefox and prevx.
I use Firefox. Don't need Prevx.
I take precautions, one of which I shared above.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <vt7ah1prtfiaki79ikgga82u5sijqrasch@4ax.com>,
BigBill@pipping.com.com says...
> On 30 Aug 2005 14:35:57 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:01 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You clicked on an unidentified link sent by a stranger?
> >>
> >> I usually wait for a few responses that indicate it's a genuine link
> >> to a real site without viruses. It's worked so far.
> >
> >Get firefox and prevx.
>
> I use Firefox. Don't need Prevx.
> I take precautions, one of which I shared above.
If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
In article <vt7ah1prtfiaki79ikgga82u5sijqrasch@4ax.com>,
BigBill@pipping.com.com says...
> On 30 Aug 2005 14:35:57 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:01 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You clicked on an unidentified link sent by a stranger?
> >>
> >> I usually wait for a few responses that indicate it's a genuine link
> >> to a real site without viruses. It's worked so far.
> >
> >Get firefox and prevx.
>
> I use Firefox. Don't need Prevx.
> I take precautions, one of which I shared above.
If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <DIOdnZ2dnZ0dCo6HnZ2dnUk4jt6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@speakeasy.net>,
j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net says...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> > I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
> If photography is bunk, how did he get the painting into a JPG? Huh? HUH??
Flatbed scanner?
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
In article <DIOdnZ2dnZ0dCo6HnZ2dnUk4jt6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@speakeasy.net>,
j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net says...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
> >
> > I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
> >
> > http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>
> If photography is bunk, how did he get the painting into a JPG? Huh? HUH??
Flatbed scanner?
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com>
wrote:
>In article <vt7ah1prtfiaki79ikgga82u5sijqrasch@4ax.com>,
>BigBill@pipping.com.com says...
>> On 30 Aug 2005 14:35:57 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bill Funk wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:01 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You clicked on an unidentified link sent by a stranger?
>> >>
>> >> I usually wait for a few responses that indicate it's a genuine link
>> >> to a real site without viruses. It's worked so far.
>> >
>> >Get firefox and prevx.
>>
>> I use Firefox. Don't need Prevx.
>> I take precautions, one of which I shared above.
>
>If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
I have SP2. I have a firewall. I have backups.
I teach computer security.
Thanks anyway.
I don't understand why sharing a simple method of seeing whether a
blind URL is malicious is seen as a *lack* of security.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com>
wrote:
>In article <vt7ah1prtfiaki79ikgga82u5sijqrasch@4ax.com>,
>BigBill@pipping.com.com says...
>> On 30 Aug 2005 14:35:57 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bill Funk wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:01 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You clicked on an unidentified link sent by a stranger?
>> >>
>> >> I usually wait for a few responses that indicate it's a genuine link
>> >> to a real site without viruses. It's worked so far.
>> >
>> >Get firefox and prevx.
>>
>> I use Firefox. Don't need Prevx.
>> I take precautions, one of which I shared above.
>
>If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
I have SP2. I have a firewall. I have backups.
I teach computer security.
Thanks anyway.
I don't understand why sharing a simple method of seeing whether a
blind URL is malicious is seen as a *lack* of security.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Rox-off wrote:
> In article <DIOdnZ2dnZ0dCo6HnZ2dnUk4jt6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@speakeasy.net>,
> j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net says...
>
>>casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>>>
>>>I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>>>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>>>
>>>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>>
>>If photography is bunk, how did he get the painting into a JPG? Huh? HUH??
>
>
> Flatbed scanner?
Oh man. Even WORSE than a photo. A digital image. How can he sleep at night?
Rox-off wrote:
> In article <DIOdnZ2dnZ0dCo6HnZ2dnUk4jt6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@speakeasy.net>,
> j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net says...
>
>>casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>This is too sublime - it's awesome, overawing.
>>>
>>>I'm fond of this one in particular, but do browse about the site.
>>>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_files/06_tech/tri...
>>>
>>>http://www.williamwhitaker.com/
>>
>>If photography is bunk, how did he get the painting into a JPG? Huh? HUH??
>
>
> Flatbed scanner?
Oh man. Even WORSE than a photo. A digital image. How can he sleep at night?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Ha. I sure don't want to borrow your laptop!
Rox-off wrote:
> If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
Ha. I sure don't want to borrow your laptop!
Rox-off wrote:
> If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
> If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
-SL
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
> If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
-SL
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Sam Lowry wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>
>
>>If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
>
> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
That's what you get for confusing news with your imagination. I also set
IE to prompt for ActiveX controls, and almost always say no.
Sam Lowry wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>
>
>>If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
>
> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
That's what you get for confusing news with your imagination. I also set
IE to prompt for ActiveX controls, and almost always say no.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <gwkyhmt65qj1.etdcrhf5mv95.dlg@40tude.net>, No.Spam@Thank.You
says...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>
> > If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
>
> -SL
You haven't used it, apparently.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
In article <gwkyhmt65qj1.etdcrhf5mv95.dlg@40tude.net>, No.Spam@Thank.You
says...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>
> > If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
>
> -SL
You haven't used it, apparently.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <gwkyhmt65qj1.etdcrhf5mv95.dlg@40tude.net>, No.Spam@Thank.You
says...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>
> > If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
Works for me.
I've been using XP for a while now and I can honestly say that I have
never had a single problem with the O/S. Ever. Not one lock-up, not one
failure. Nothing. Win 2000 and previous Windows were terrible in
comparison.
SP2 applies a patch to IE6 that is more of a security precaution than
anything. Since installing it I haven't had any hassles, but surfing the
web became a lot easier using the pop-up blocker!
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
In article <gwkyhmt65qj1.etdcrhf5mv95.dlg@40tude.net>, No.Spam@Thank.You
says...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>
> > If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>
> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
Works for me.
I've been using XP for a while now and I can honestly say that I have
never had a single problem with the O/S. Ever. Not one lock-up, not one
failure. Nothing. Win 2000 and previous Windows were terrible in
comparison.
SP2 applies a patch to IE6 that is more of a security precaution than
anything. Since installing it I haven't had any hassles, but surfing the
web became a lot easier using the pop-up blocker!
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Rox-off wrote:
> In article <gwkyhmt65qj1.etdcrhf5mv95.dlg@40tude.net>, No.Spam@Thank.You
> says...
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>>
>>> If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
>
> Works for me.
>
> I've been using XP for a while now and I can honestly say that I have
> never had a single problem with the O/S. Ever. Not one lock-up, not one
> failure. Nothing. Win 2000 and previous Windows were terrible in
> comparison.
>
> SP2 applies a patch to IE6 that is more of a security precaution than
> anything. Since installing it I haven't had any hassles, but surfing the
> web became a lot easier using the pop-up blocker!
>
SP2 includes MANY security patches, a firewall program, and many other
fixes, and some enhancements. It behooves anyone with XP to install it
(and SP3 when released) if they care about security.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Rox-off wrote:
> In article <gwkyhmt65qj1.etdcrhf5mv95.dlg@40tude.net>, No.Spam@Thank.You
> says...
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:28:34 +0200, Rox-off wrote:
>>
>>> If you use Windows just get XP Service Pack 2. Stops the rot.
>> I thought XP-SP2 was the rot.
>
> Works for me.
>
> I've been using XP for a while now and I can honestly say that I have
> never had a single problem with the O/S. Ever. Not one lock-up, not one
> failure. Nothing. Win 2000 and previous Windows were terrible in
> comparison.
>
> SP2 applies a patch to IE6 that is more of a security precaution than
> anything. Since installing it I haven't had any hassles, but surfing the
> web became a lot easier using the pop-up blocker!
>
SP2 includes MANY security patches, a firewall program, and many other
fixes, and some enhancements. It behooves anyone with XP to install it
(and SP3 when released) if they care about security.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <MPG.1d80c416eecc3afb9896d7@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox-off
<roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> Spoken like a true disciple of either the Mac or Linux box.
I've used every version of Windows since 1.04, used all the other OSs
too, and the sad fact is that Windows XP just blows. I have to use it
at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
In article <MPG.1d80c416eecc3afb9896d7@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox-off
<roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> Spoken like a true disciple of either the Mac or Linux box.
I've used every version of Windows since 1.04, used all the other OSs
too, and the sad fact is that Windows XP just blows. I have to use it
at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <010920050600045137%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> I have to use it
> at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
Can you elaborate on that? I have never used XP. Mostly
just, Mac systems & Unix occasionally Win 2000.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
In article <010920050600045137%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> I have to use it
> at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
Can you elaborate on that? I have never used XP. Mostly
just, Mac systems & Unix occasionally Win 2000.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <greg-F465A8.09454201092005@news.verizon.net>, Gregory Blank
<greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> In article <010920050600045137%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to use it
> > at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
>
> Can you elaborate on that? I have never used XP. Mostly
> just, Mac systems & Unix occasionally Win 2000.
I was just kidding.
I'm a Mac person with my person equipment. I do have a PC but it only
gets turned on maybe once every 3 weeks or so.
Just the interface of Windows is too much "in your face." I have to use
XP at work and it locks up at least once a day. It's sluggish *and*
ugly. With my Macs, I don't have any AV software installed - the
firewall isn't even turned on. I don't have to think about how to do
something, I can just get the job done and enjoy the experience along
the way.
In article <greg-F465A8.09454201092005@news.verizon.net>, Gregory Blank
<greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> In article <010920050600045137%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to use it
> > at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
>
> Can you elaborate on that? I have never used XP. Mostly
> just, Mac systems & Unix occasionally Win 2000.
I was just kidding.
I'm a Mac person with my person equipment. I do have a PC but it only
gets turned on maybe once every 3 weeks or so.
Just the interface of Windows is too much "in your face." I have to use
XP at work and it locks up at least once a day. It's sluggish *and*
ugly. With my Macs, I don't have any AV software installed - the
firewall isn't even turned on. I don't have to think about how to do
something, I can just get the job done and enjoy the experience along
the way.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <010920050639413685%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> I'm a Mac person with my person equipment. I do have a PC but it only
> gets turned on maybe once every 3 weeks or so.
>
> Just the interface of Windows is too much "in your face." I have to use
> XP at work and it locks up at least once a day. It's sluggish *and*
> ugly. With my Macs, I don't have any AV software installed - the
> firewall isn't even turned on. I don't have to think about how to do
> something, I can just get the job done and enjoy the experience along
> the way.
Sounds like you are running XP on a low end piece of hardware. You can't
run it on anything under 512MB of RAM or a Pentium III and expect to get
performance.
I repeat, I have had no problems with XP and that's on no less than 10
PC's I have built for people or bought in the last two years.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
In article <010920050639413685%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> I'm a Mac person with my person equipment. I do have a PC but it only
> gets turned on maybe once every 3 weeks or so.
>
> Just the interface of Windows is too much "in your face." I have to use
> XP at work and it locks up at least once a day. It's sluggish *and*
> ugly. With my Macs, I don't have any AV software installed - the
> firewall isn't even turned on. I don't have to think about how to do
> something, I can just get the job done and enjoy the experience along
> the way.
Sounds like you are running XP on a low end piece of hardware. You can't
run it on anything under 512MB of RAM or a Pentium III and expect to get
performance.
I repeat, I have had no problems with XP and that's on no less than 10
PC's I have built for people or bought in the last two years.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <010920050600045137%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> In article <MPG.1d80c416eecc3afb9896d7@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox-off
> <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>
> > Spoken like a true disciple of either the Mac or Linux box.
>
> I've used every version of Windows since 1.04, used all the other OSs
> too, and the sad fact is that Windows XP just blows. I have to use it
> at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
You're dirty because you masterbate to some over-priced, underspec'd
hardware known as The Apple MacIntosh.
For the price of one G5 I could build about three top end PC's, all of
which would make the G5 look as bunk as this thread.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
In article <010920050600045137%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> In article <MPG.1d80c416eecc3afb9896d7@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox-off
> <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>
> > Spoken like a true disciple of either the Mac or Linux box.
>
> I've used every version of Windows since 1.04, used all the other OSs
> too, and the sad fact is that Windows XP just blows. I have to use it
> at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
You're dirty because you masterbate to some over-priced, underspec'd
hardware known as The Apple MacIntosh.
For the price of one G5 I could build about three top end PC's, all of
which would make the G5 look as bunk as this thread.
--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to use it
>> at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
>
> Can you elaborate on that? I have never used XP. Mostly
> just, Mac systems & Unix occasionally Win 2000.
There really aren't a lot of differences between 2K and XP.
If you use the "Classic" interface and the Sumida wallpaper for the desktop,
2K and XP look pretty decent, but the more recent "look" looks really cheap
and chintzy. Microsoft really does seem to progress monotonically from bad
to worse in terms of UI appearance.
Under the hood it (the NT/2K/XP series) has been a true modern OS,
multithreaded, protected, and preemptively scheduled, since well before
Win95 was released, and 10 years before Apple got around to releasing a
modern OS. But Apple finally caught up.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to use it
>> at work and at the end of the day I just feel so dirty.
>
> Can you elaborate on that? I have never used XP. Mostly
> just, Mac systems & Unix occasionally Win 2000.
There really aren't a lot of differences between 2K and XP.
If you use the "Classic" interface and the Sumida wallpaper for the desktop,
2K and XP look pretty decent, but the more recent "look" looks really cheap
and chintzy. Microsoft really does seem to progress monotonically from bad
to worse in terms of UI appearance.
Under the hood it (the NT/2K/XP series) has been a true modern OS,
multithreaded, protected, and preemptively scheduled, since well before
Win95 was released, and 10 years before Apple got around to releasing a
modern OS. But Apple finally caught up.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
2005-09-02, DD wrote:
>[...]
> In every other area it bombed, the most important being getting
> replacement parts. Believe it or not they dropped the boxes from a one
> story high ledge to see what it would take to fix them. The Mac was
> kaput, whereas the PC only needed a new power supply and mainboard.
That is the whole PC... :-)
-peter
2005-09-02, DD wrote:
>[...]
> In every other area it bombed, the most important being getting
> replacement parts. Believe it or not they dropped the boxes from a one
> story high ledge to see what it would take to fix them. The Mac was
> kaput, whereas the PC only needed a new power supply and mainboard.
That is the whole PC... :-)
-peter
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com> wrote:
> the Mac. I did this exercise a couple of years ago myself - TRIED to
> match components and build a PC equivalent to a Mac. You know, same
> video card, HD, etc. In particular, I couldn't find a case that had
> near the build quality of the Mac. When I was done, the cost (using
> carefully shopped for but boxed, name brand components) was equivalent
> to or higher than the Mac.
Boxed? Hate to break this to you but most PCs don't use boxed parts. Most
use OEM parts. They come with no manuals. It's not unheard of for them
to come with lower spec levels. Even using higher quality parts I've never
had any trouble putting together a machine for less then a similar machine
from a big PC maker. Every time I do I'm using higher quality parts.
Nick
--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------
Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com> wrote:
> the Mac. I did this exercise a couple of years ago myself - TRIED to
> match components and build a PC equivalent to a Mac. You know, same
> video card, HD, etc. In particular, I couldn't find a case that had
> near the build quality of the Mac. When I was done, the cost (using
> carefully shopped for but boxed, name brand components) was equivalent
> to or higher than the Mac.
Boxed? Hate to break this to you but most PCs don't use boxed parts. Most
use OEM parts. They come with no manuals. It's not unheard of for them
to come with lower spec levels. Even using higher quality parts I've never
had any trouble putting together a machine for less then a similar machine
from a big PC maker. Every time I do I'm using higher quality parts.
Nick
--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <dndmu2-hqp.ln1@barley.site>, Nick Zentena
<zentena@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Boxed? Hate to break this to you but most PCs don't use boxed parts. Most
> use OEM parts. They come with no manuals. It's not unheard of for them
> to come with lower spec levels. Even using higher quality parts I've never
> had any trouble putting together a machine for less then a similar machine
> from a big PC maker. Every time I do I'm using higher quality parts.
Well, of course they do, but when YOU buy OEM parts you're giving up a
lot in the way of support, warranty, and documentation - all of which
you get when you buy a pre-assembled computer from Apple, HP, Compaq,
or whomever.
And you missed the point. When you remove the expenses involved in
actually building and integrating the darned thing of COURSE you can do
it cheaper. The point was that what you have cannot be directly
compared - period.
In article <dndmu2-hqp.ln1@barley.site>, Nick Zentena
<zentena@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Boxed? Hate to break this to you but most PCs don't use boxed parts. Most
> use OEM parts. They come with no manuals. It's not unheard of for them
> to come with lower spec levels. Even using higher quality parts I've never
> had any trouble putting together a machine for less then a similar machine
> from a big PC maker. Every time I do I'm using higher quality parts.
Well, of course they do, but when YOU buy OEM parts you're giving up a
lot in the way of support, warranty, and documentation - all of which
you get when you buy a pre-assembled computer from Apple, HP, Compaq,
or whomever.
And you missed the point. When you remove the expenses involved in
actually building and integrating the darned thing of COURSE you can do
it cheaper. The point was that what you have cannot be directly
compared - period.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <dffsme$thg$1@bolt.sonic.net>, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
says...
> >Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
> >time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
> >Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>
> Then you haven't checked.
Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
graphics card (can't remember the make).
> >I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>
> Yes you do.
Wrong again. I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
modern day users.
--
Look. See. Take pictures. Share.
In article <dffsme$thg$1@bolt.sonic.net>, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
says...
> >Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
> >time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
> >Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>
> Then you haven't checked.
Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
graphics card (can't remember the make).
> >I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>
> Yes you do.
Wrong again. I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
modern day users.
--
Look. See. Take pictures. Share.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
>> >Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
>> >time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
>> >Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>>
>> Then you haven't checked.
>
>Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
>times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
>graphics card (can't remember the make).
A PC that isn't an equivalent, in other words. One with a slower
processor, probably no Firewire or gigbit ethernet or high-speed
USB or digitial video output or digitial audio inputs and outputs,
and probably without even any software.
Let's see a link for this PC that you claim is 1/3rd the price.
>> >I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>>
>> Yes you do.
>
>Wrong again.
Your biases are obvious.
> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>modern day users.
Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
>> >Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
>> >time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
>> >Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>>
>> Then you haven't checked.
>
>Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
>times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
>graphics card (can't remember the make).
A PC that isn't an equivalent, in other words. One with a slower
processor, probably no Firewire or gigbit ethernet or high-speed
USB or digitial video output or digitial audio inputs and outputs,
and probably without even any software.
Let's see a link for this PC that you claim is 1/3rd the price.
>> >I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>>
>> Yes you do.
>
>Wrong again.
Your biases are obvious.
> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>modern day users.
Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:53:11 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
>Your biases are obvious.
>
>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>modern day users.
>
>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>
>--
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@sonic.net
No biases there, eh? :-)
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:53:11 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
>Your biases are obvious.
>
>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>modern day users.
>
>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>
>--
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@sonic.net
No biases there, eh? :-)
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Ray Fischer wrote:
> DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
>
>>>> Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
>>>> time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
>>>> Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>>> Then you haven't checked.
>> Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
>> times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
>> graphics card (can't remember the make).
>
> A PC that isn't an equivalent, in other words. One with a slower
> processor, probably no Firewire or gigbit ethernet or high-speed
> USB or digitial video output or digitial audio inputs and outputs,
> and probably without even any software.
>
> Let's see a link for this PC that you claim is 1/3rd the price.
>
>>>> I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>>> Yes you do.
>> Wrong again.
>
> Your biases are obvious.
>
>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>> modern day users.
>
> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>
Your bias, of course, is not obvious. You made my day. I needed a good
laugh.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Ray Fischer wrote:
> DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
>
>>>> Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
>>>> time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
>>>> Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>>> Then you haven't checked.
>> Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
>> times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
>> graphics card (can't remember the make).
>
> A PC that isn't an equivalent, in other words. One with a slower
> processor, probably no Firewire or gigbit ethernet or high-speed
> USB or digitial video output or digitial audio inputs and outputs,
> and probably without even any software.
>
> Let's see a link for this PC that you claim is 1/3rd the price.
>
>>>> I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>>> Yes you do.
>> Wrong again.
>
> Your biases are obvious.
>
>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>> modern day users.
>
> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>
Your bias, of course, is not obvious. You made my day. I needed a good
laugh.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:53:11 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
> Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Your biases are obvious.
>>
>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>> modern day users.
>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfischer@sonic.net
>
> No biases there, eh? :-)
>
He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
Which goes double for Randall.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:53:11 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
> Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Your biases are obvious.
>>
>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>> modern day users.
>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfischer@sonic.net
>
> No biases there, eh? :-)
>
He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
Which goes double for Randall.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <4C5Te.15605$aR1.2433@fe07.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
> Which goes double for Randall.
I'm certified in NT Server & Workstation as well as A+ for both PC and
Mac. I used PCs beginning in 1986 and had an intense hatred of all
things Macintosh.
In 2000 I became so disgusted with Windows that I sold my dual
processor machine and bought an iMac (and haven't looked back). I do
have a Pentium III machine here running Windows 2000. It gets turned on
about once every three weeks...just to update the AV software.
I can be much more efficient with the Mac and not have the OS be in my
face at every turn. The Mac keeps working and the OS never dies.
In article <4C5Te.15605$aR1.2433@fe07.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
> Which goes double for Randall.
I'm certified in NT Server & Workstation as well as A+ for both PC and
Mac. I used PCs beginning in 1986 and had an intense hatred of all
things Macintosh.
In 2000 I became so disgusted with Windows that I sold my dual
processor machine and bought an iMac (and haven't looked back). I do
have a Pentium III machine here running Windows 2000. It gets turned on
about once every three weeks...just to update the AV software.
I can be much more efficient with the Mac and not have the OS be in my
face at every turn. The Mac keeps working and the OS never dies.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:42:36 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:53:11 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
>> Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Your biases are obvious.
>>>
>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>> modern day users.
>>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ray Fischer
>>> rfischer@sonic.net
>>
>> No biases there, eh? :-)
>>
>He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
>Which goes double for Randall.
To me, this really is a religious argument. :-)
If I like mine, and you like yours, and he likes his, I don't see a
problem.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:42:36 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:53:11 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
>> Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Your biases are obvious.
>>>
>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>> modern day users.
>>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ray Fischer
>>> rfischer@sonic.net
>>
>> No biases there, eh? :-)
>>
>He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
>Which goes double for Randall.
To me, this really is a religious argument. :-)
If I like mine, and you like yours, and he likes his, I don't see a
problem.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Your biases are obvious.
>>
>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>modern day users.
>>
>>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>
>No biases there, eh? :-)
I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Your biases are obvious.
>>
>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>modern day users.
>>
>>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>
>No biases there, eh? :-)
I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:05:40 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
>Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>Your biases are obvious.
>>>
>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>>modern day users.
>>>
>>>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>
>>No biases there, eh? :-)
>
>I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
>
>WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
>simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
>
>It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
You may have missed the point of what I said.
"Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP" is a biased
statement.
That some don't see it that way doesn't make it a non-biased
statement.
But then, this is a religious war, and neither side sees any bias in
their dogma.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:05:40 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
>Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>Your biases are obvious.
>>>
>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>>modern day users.
>>>
>>>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>
>>No biases there, eh? :-)
>
>I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
>
>WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
>simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
>
>It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
You may have missed the point of what I said.
"Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP" is a biased
statement.
That some don't see it that way doesn't make it a non-biased
statement.
But then, this is a religious war, and neither side sees any bias in
their dogma.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
>>>>> Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
>>>>> time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
>>>>> Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>>>> Then you haven't checked.
>>> Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
>>> times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
>>> graphics card (can't remember the make).
>>
>> A PC that isn't an equivalent, in other words. One with a slower
>> processor, probably no Firewire or gigbit ethernet or high-speed
>> USB or digitial video output or digitial audio inputs and outputs,
>> and probably without even any software.
>>
>> Let's see a link for this PC that you claim is 1/3rd the price.
>>
>>>>> I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>>>> Yes you do.
>>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Your biases are obvious.
>>
>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>> modern day users.
>>
>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>
>Your bias, of course, is not obvious.
You're so attached to Microsoft that you think any criticism is a
bias.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
>>>>> Not over-priced? In what part of Cloudcuckooland are you resident? Last
>>>>> time I checked a G5 cost about 3 or 4 times the price of the top end AMD
>>>>> Athlon with 1 Gig of RAM and a kickass graphics card.
>>>> Then you haven't checked.
>>> Oh yes I did, fella. I checked the price of the G5 and it was three
>>> times the price of the AMD Athlon 2200+, with 1GB RAM and a case and a
>>> graphics card (can't remember the make).
>>
>> A PC that isn't an equivalent, in other words. One with a slower
>> processor, probably no Firewire or gigbit ethernet or high-speed
>> USB or digitial video output or digitial audio inputs and outputs,
>> and probably without even any software.
>>
>> Let's see a link for this PC that you claim is 1/3rd the price.
>>
>>>>> I have nothing against Macs or other computers,
>>>> Yes you do.
>>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Your biases are obvious.
>>
>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>> modern day users.
>>
>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>
>Your bias, of course, is not obvious.
You're so attached to Microsoft that you think any criticism is a
bias.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <4C5Te.15605$aR1.2433@fe07.lga>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
>> Which goes double for Randall.
>
> I'm certified in NT Server & Workstation as well as A+ for both PC and
> Mac. I used PCs beginning in 1986 and had an intense hatred of all
> things Macintosh.
> In 2000 I became so disgusted with Windows that I sold my dual
> processor machine and bought an iMac (and haven't looked back). I do
> have a Pentium III machine here running Windows 2000. It gets turned on
> about once every three weeks...just to update the AV software.
> I can be much more efficient with the Mac and not have the OS be in my
> face at every turn. The Mac keeps working and the OS never dies.
And, except for a HD failure, I have used Windows since 1995 with little
or no problem. WinXP is solid as a rock here.
I see no reason to put up with the Mac and the rather straitjacket
approach the Mac enforces on users, and applications. Just my opinion,
and that of 95% of the market. So, WHY do you take potshots, mostly
completely without foundation, at PC's at every opportunity?
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <4C5Te.15605$aR1.2433@fe07.lga>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> He's not biased, he is just caught up in his religion.
>> Which goes double for Randall.
>
> I'm certified in NT Server & Workstation as well as A+ for both PC and
> Mac. I used PCs beginning in 1986 and had an intense hatred of all
> things Macintosh.
> In 2000 I became so disgusted with Windows that I sold my dual
> processor machine and bought an iMac (and haven't looked back). I do
> have a Pentium III machine here running Windows 2000. It gets turned on
> about once every three weeks...just to update the AV software.
> I can be much more efficient with the Mac and not have the OS be in my
> face at every turn. The Mac keeps working and the OS never dies.
And, except for a HD failure, I have used Windows since 1995 with little
or no problem. WinXP is solid as a rock here.
I see no reason to put up with the Mac and the rather straitjacket
approach the Mac enforces on users, and applications. Just my opinion,
and that of 95% of the market. So, WHY do you take potshots, mostly
completely without foundation, at PC's at every opportunity?
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Your biases are obvious.
>>>>
>>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>>>modern day users.
>>>>
>>>>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>>
>>>No biases there, eh? :-)
>>
>>I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
>>
>>WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
>>simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
>>
>>It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
>
>You may have missed the point of what I said.
>"Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP" is a biased
>statement.
It isn't biased if it's true. Microsoft has done a shitty job of
designing the UI, making it next to impossible to find out how to do
things which should be easy.
I've been in the software biz now for some 30 years. I've seen all
manner of OS's and user interfaces. WinXp isn't the worst (that
would have to be OS/360 or MVS), but it's a long way from being the
best.
Microsoft has long had the mentality that they know what's best for
you. I see it in the interfaces and in the OS APIs and in the
business practices. That works fine if you do only what the engineers
think you want to do, but it completely falls apart when you try and
do something different.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Your biases are obvious.
>>>>
>>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>>>modern day users.
>>>>
>>>>Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>>
>>>No biases there, eh? :-)
>>
>>I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
>>
>>WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
>>simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
>>
>>It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
>
>You may have missed the point of what I said.
>"Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP" is a biased
>statement.
It isn't biased if it's true. Microsoft has done a shitty job of
designing the UI, making it next to impossible to find out how to do
things which should be easy.
I've been in the software biz now for some 30 years. I've seen all
manner of OS's and user interfaces. WinXp isn't the worst (that
would have to be OS/360 or MVS), but it's a long way from being the
best.
Microsoft has long had the mentality that they know what's best for
you. I see it in the interfaces and in the OS APIs and in the
business practices. That works fine if you do only what the engineers
think you want to do, but it completely falls apart when you try and
do something different.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>> Your biases are obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>>>> modern day users.
>>>>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>>> No biases there, eh? :-)
>>> I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
>>>
>>> WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
>>> simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
>>>
>>> It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
>> You may have missed the point of what I said.
>> "Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP" is a biased
>> statement.
>
> It isn't biased if it's true. Microsoft has done a shitty job of
> designing the UI, making it next to impossible to find out how to do
> things which should be easy.
>
> I've been in the software biz now for some 30 years. I've seen all
> manner of OS's and user interfaces. WinXp isn't the worst (that
> would have to be OS/360 or MVS), but it's a long way from being the
> best.
>
> Microsoft has long had the mentality that they know what's best for
> you. I see it in the interfaces and in the OS APIs and in the
> business practices. That works fine if you do only what the engineers
> think you want to do, but it completely falls apart when you try and
> do something different.
>
Maybe that is why I like WinXP so much. After working for about 35
years with OS/360 and MVS, anything would seem to be an improvement. I
don't find WinXP user hostile, but then maybe I am not trying to do what
you are trying to do.
What gives you problems?
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>> Your biases are obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Macs are very sexy, but very impractical for most
>>>>>> modern day users.
>>>>> Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP.
>>>> No biases there, eh? :-)
>>> I use several OS's regularly. BSD Unix, Mac OS, WinXP Pro, and Linux.
>>>
>>> WinXP has the aggravating attribute of making many simple things
>>> simple and advanced things either very difficult or impossible.
>>>
>>> It isn't a "bias" to describe Hilter as evil or WinXP as user hostile.
>> You may have missed the point of what I said.
>> "Unlike the PCs that run a user-hostile OS like WinXP" is a biased
>> statement.
>
> It isn't biased if it's true. Microsoft has done a shitty job of
> designing the UI, making it next to impossible to find out how to do
> things which should be easy.
>
> I've been in the software biz now for some 30 years. I've seen all
> manner of OS's and user interfaces. WinXp isn't the worst (that
> would have to be OS/360 or MVS), but it's a long way from being the
> best.
>
> Microsoft has long had the mentality that they know what's best for
> you. I see it in the interfaces and in the OS APIs and in the
> business practices. That works fine if you do only what the engineers
> think you want to do, but it completely falls apart when you try and
> do something different.
>
Maybe that is why I like WinXP so much. After working for about 35
years with OS/360 and MVS, anything would seem to be an improvement. I
don't find WinXP user hostile, but then maybe I am not trying to do what
you are trying to do.
What gives you problems?
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <MPG.1d8756323633bb919896ef@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox
<roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> I have found AMD to be a far better performer than any of the Intel
> based processors I have used. In fact, I had a discussion with my
> sister-in-law's father who is some kind of professor in digital systems
> and he will tell you in no uncertain terms that the architecture of the
> P4 processor is the biggest load of shite compared to that of the AMD.
>
> Have you ever seen the size of an Intel chip compared to their AMD
> counterparts? Go figure...
Ever touched an AMD when it's running? Pretty good for keeping that cup
of coffee warm.
In article <MPG.1d8756323633bb919896ef@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox
<roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> I have found AMD to be a far better performer than any of the Intel
> based processors I have used. In fact, I had a discussion with my
> sister-in-law's father who is some kind of professor in digital systems
> and he will tell you in no uncertain terms that the architecture of the
> P4 processor is the biggest load of shite compared to that of the AMD.
>
> Have you ever seen the size of an Intel chip compared to their AMD
> counterparts? Go figure...
Ever touched an AMD when it's running? Pretty good for keeping that cup
of coffee warm.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <WvcTe.28499$1g2.6212@fe05.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> And, except for a HD failure, I have used Windows since 1995 with little
> or no problem. WinXP is solid as a rock here.
> I see no reason to put up with the Mac and the rather straitjacket
> approach the Mac enforces on users, and applications. Just my opinion,
> and that of 95% of the market. So, WHY do you take potshots, mostly
> completely without foundation, at PC's at every opportunity?
Windows 95A should have never been released. It was barely better than
a beta.
ME was absolutely horrible.
And XP continues the tradition of being a resource hog with an
extremely ugly interface.
In article <WvcTe.28499$1g2.6212@fe05.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> And, except for a HD failure, I have used Windows since 1995 with little
> or no problem. WinXP is solid as a rock here.
> I see no reason to put up with the Mac and the rather straitjacket
> approach the Mac enforces on users, and applications. Just my opinion,
> and that of 95% of the market. So, WHY do you take potshots, mostly
> completely without foundation, at PC's at every opportunity?
Windows 95A should have never been released. It was barely better than
a beta.
ME was absolutely horrible.
And XP continues the tradition of being a resource hog with an
extremely ugly interface.
Related ressources:
- ForumBreakthrough in aesthetics of fine art photography
- ForumDSLRs and underwater photography
- Forumcontemporary dance photography
- ForumGetting into Wedding Photography?
- Forumwhat lens for air show photography?
- ForumWhich camera for nude photography?
- ForumSeattle Photography Store..
- Forumtrading (burning) copies of dvd photography videos
- ForumGood photography discussion forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Digital Camera categories
!
