Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
From: glporter@zeus.calpoly.edu (Glen Porter)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:09:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Keywords: image manipulation

In article <93Jan09.163301.18195@acs.ucalgary.ca> panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
>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

read it again.  Capability, not built-in features.  

>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?

Does everyone want to HAVE to pay for Built in SCSI?  . . . no.
Audio input . . . PC's were designed before there was a Real Audio market.
You get what you design.  However, you will find that there are audio Input
cards for the PC.  and once again, Does everyone want to HAVE teo pay for
an audio input when they buy a MAC? . . . no.  Multiple screens . . . since whendidn't the PC have multiple Screen cabability?  Just tell the Motherboard
there are no screens, and start pluging in.  Furthermore . . . There are very
few needs for multiple screens . . . Does everyone want to HAVE to pay for this
feature when they buy a MAC? . . .  no.

>>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.
>
face the facts man . . . The vast majority of the photographic market is not 
very computer literate. . . this discussion group is an exception obviously, and
most of the people on the list who are literate Computer users would agree.
Especially the ones who have to support them.

>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.

I believe the word was storage . . . not RAM.

>
>(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*

Are a few IRQs too much too handle?  Did you know most of the new boards 
find an open IRQ by themselves . . . .  There is apparently no reason you 
should . . . .

>
>>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.

Read it again, "IBM's" . . . not "DOS"

>
>>example, you will only see a Macintosh as a file server for macintoshs'.
>i
BTW, after handling a few replys, It was obvious, that I wasn't clear enough
above . . . read it:  Mac's server Macs, not other machines.

>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.
>
Again, read it over . .  IBM, not DOS.  I am talking machine, not software.

And yes, notice Netware Runs on IBM's almost exclusively . . . . think about it

>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?
Any capable office personell that has worked with both will agree . . .
More business can be done on an IBM than on a Mac in the same time.

Keyword . .  Capable (sp?)  Not a trainee.  The learning curve on the MAC
interface is steeper, but hits a rather low ceiling.  On IBM's, it is a slow
learning experience, but once they get used to it, it produces more work, in 
less time than the MAC - Yes, this is due to interface, not architecture.  I
blame it mostly on the Mouse.         

>
>A Mac.
>
>>BTW, the very first image manipulators were CPM.  
>
>So what? What is its market share *now*?

I answered this one, in the posting you responded to. . . short memory?
>
>>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.

Yes, the 680x0 processor series is impressive.  But If you finish reading the 
Book, you will see that it is because of the User interface.  Pretty, and Slow.


>
>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.
>

You have proved nothing here. . .  business is business, and sales is sales.

>So, who says I'm biased?
to, I would say biased, Just a little confused as to what is caused by what . . . 



BTW, this has never been to say which machine you should choose for Photo/office
work.  It has been to clarify shear capability.  Like expandability . . . the
first MACS had practically none.  Count them slots!

I keep getting these arguements . . . about software.  and frills,  and 
Unneccesary things.

Like I said before, 

If you want photographic capability, and don't want to deal with an operating
system, you should get a MAC, and a LOT of storage.

Apparently My original Points still stand . . . . .

my crudentials . . .


glporter@nike.calpoly.edu                  (Glen Porter)   *
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo   *
Network Software Specialist / Technician   (805)756-1295   *
Electronic Engineering and Physics                         *
Newsgroups: rec.photo