RE: OT: Mac Blat

[George Sinos]

Mike -

It's not that I don't respect your opinion, because I do. It's just, in this case, times have changed. Photoshop on a decently sized Intel machine under windows XP is virtually indistinguishable from that same program on a Mac. Many of the latest Photoshop books point this out in their equipment recommendations.

Everyone has their own experience on which they must draw, but I'm an Apple bigot from way back, and it's time to admit that the Wintel boxes as just as good, if not better and significantly more powerful and less expensive.

By the way, both Apple and Microsoft based their windows desktop on research done at Xerox PARC. I'm sure you must know this. Apple was just the first thief with a usable, marketable imitation. Apple sued Microsoft over the use of the Trash Can icon. That's why you know have a much more politically correct Recycle Bin on Windows.

Now, as far as Photoshop is concerned, I also have an opinion on that. (Time to stir the pot.) To recommend Photoshop to a photographer getting into image processing is a disservice. That novice would be much better served by Picture Window Pro at one fifth the cost.

Sure, there are at least 100 current titles on Photoshop. 99% of them are duplicates, and only add to the cost of the product. Picture Window Pro, however, was written for photographers in the first place, not graphic artists. The documentation and white papers Digital Light and Color's web site, <www.dl-c.com> and Normen Koren's web site, <www.normenkoren.com> are sufficient to get most going at no additional cost to the program. Questions are answered promptly by the program's author on the DL-C web site.

It's my opinion that most photographers will learn faster, progress much farther, and enjoy their work more with a program like Picture Window Pro. A very few of those may find it inadequate and desire to move on to something like Photoshop, but most will be quite satisfied. Some may even supplement it with a program like Photoshop Elements.

By the way, I'm not saying Photoshop isn't worth the money, I'm just saying it's aimed at a different audience. Many photographers have adapted it to their needs quite well. It's just that all the stuff in it that will probably not be used by Photographers is what makes it cost $600, and hard to learn. I'm recommending that most people save the time and money and get right to the meat of what they want by using Picture Window Pro.

OK, enough stirring the pot.

See you later, gs

-----------------------------

Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

"Considering that "Windows" is a blatant rip-off of the Mac interface...." <snip>

------------------------------