From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Summary: In which another misconception gets shot down
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 16:33:01 GMT
Expires: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 05:00:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: image manipulation
Followup-To: rec.photo

In article <1993Jan08.181221.191081@zeus.calpoly.edu> glporter@zeus.calpoly.edu (Glen Porter) writes:

>I have to disagree (in a way) here.  An IBM pc (clone obviously -never buy an
>IBM brand IBM!) Has more capability than Macs ever will.  However, the 

How interesting.

*chuckle* From the very start, Macs had more built-in features
than their Intel-based competition (ever remember CGA resolution
and the original monochrome display adapter?). Your kind of
blanket statement betrays a distinct bias and speaks poorly of
your objectivity in recommending a solution to a REAL user. I
support a mixed Mac-PC network, and I have used BOTH platforms
since the early '80's, plus I'm a photographer, so I think I can
put in my two cents' worth in this discussion.

Just to heat things up a bit -- how many PC-compatibles come with
built-in SCSI, some audio input, and most significantly, a screen
imaging model (QuickDraw) that supports multiple bit depth and
resolution as well as MULTIPLE monitors of varying sizes? Hmmm?

>software market has turned to only writting such programs for MACs, but only 
>because of the generally computer illiterate photography market.

Now, now, insulting us photographers, are you? Fine, go ahead,
accuse us of being computer-illiterate and see where it gets you.

Photoshop 2.5 is now announced for Win3.1, but it appeared on the
Mac first. Just like Adobe Illustrator bowed in 1986, and took a
long time before it was ported to Windows. For very good reasons.

>the rest of the information you stated is quite correct.  The Mac needs a huge
>amount of storage just to run, then add the amound of data space needed for

If you're manipulating images, I'd say 20MB is a good amount of
RAM to have, although in a pinch 8MB will be adequate. When you
look at the feature set of System 7.1 as opposed to Windows 3.1,
you'll see why the Mac should have at least 8MB. Besides, a good
Win3.1 machine also ought to have 8MB minimum, plus VESA or PCI
local-bus accelerated video, if not a graphics coprocessor, even.

(The Number Nine adapters with 40+million Winmarks come to mind).

>pictures, and you are looking at an Optical disk, or a gigabyte hard drive
> - quite true.

On an Intel machine, the same would be true. Just make sure the
SCSI controller works properly and there are no IRQ conflicts.

*snicker*

>I hope you will forgive me for venting (see above), but it is one of my
>pet peaves to hear "Macs do more than IBM's".  In a networking environment for
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
In general, before the advent of Win3.1, this was largely true.
Even today, there is no equivalent to Adobe Premiere 2.0 on the
Intel x86 base. And Apple's QuickTime for Windows is not yet
comparable to QuickTime 1.5 on the Mac.

>example, you will only see a Macintosh as a file server for macintoshs'.

This is a limitation of the hardware and software architecture
for a machine that is programmed primarily for an event-driven
user interface. You don't see DOS being used on Intel x86 file
servers, do you? Of course not! And NetWare 3.11 is not exactly
an everyday operating system for the average user, either.

Apple has never built a Netware 3.11-class server, anyway.

>IBM's are true workhorses.  Macs are pretty, and "safe", which slows the 
>Mac down to a crawl.  

Oh, try a Quadra 700, at least. Better yet, try a Quadra 950. And
then try a Quadra 950 stuffed full of Radius Rocket 33's running
RocketShare, and you'll see one of the most practical real-world
applications of asymmetric multiprocessing. (see PC Week Sep.27).

Slow? Compared with? Which DTP/graphics PC did Byte endorse?

A Mac.

>BTW, the very first image manipulators were CPM.  

So what? What is its market share *now*?

>CPM is the closely related predicessor to DOS (IBM).  This was all done, at 
>XEROX on Intel 80 series platforms, long before the MAC was even thought of.
>IBM programs run on the Intel 80 series platforms, not Mac programs.

Read the new biography of Bill Gates. Even old Bill realized that
the Mac was a world-beating design, and so he signed on early to
develop software for it, so now Microsoft is #1 in Mac WP & SS.

Their next step will be to acquire graphics software for the Mac.

>The dominance of MAC computers in Image manipulation, is strictly business
>related, not capability related.

Tell that to the programmers who wrote Photoshop in 1990. Or to
the design team that unveiled PageMaker on the Mac in 1986.

Or tell that to Kodak, which chose the Mac as its platform for
Photo-CD on desktop computers.

So, in summary, I'd have to conclude...

If a photographer can afford only one computer and wants to do
SERIOUS image manipulation, including accessing PhotoCD files,
and also wants to run a small business, there is a good case to
be made for going with a Macintosh, especially for someone who
does not want to wrestle with IRQ conflicts, WIN.INI files, SCSI
driver incompatibilities, and extended memory optimization. Take
it from someone who has been using both Macs and PCs a long time.

That said, I eagerly await the PowerPC's from IBM and Apple...

Some suggestions: Check out

1. Claris FileMaker Pro 2.0 (flat-file database for general use)
2. Aldus Fetch 1.0 (multimedia archiving and image-management)
3. Adobe Photoshop 2.5 (high-end image manipulation)
4. Fractal Design Painter 2.0 (natural-media image creation)
5. Kodak ColorSense 1.0 (color management and calibration)
6. Cradoc CaptionWriter (for labeling slides for stock files)

Items 1, 3, 4, and 6 are available for both Macs and PCs.

So, who says I'm biased?

8^)

Victor