Photoshop's use of monitor profile
in [Photoshop]
|
Prev: Photoshop CS2 error: No more virtual tiles can be allocated
Next: how to create mythbuster type of letters
From: Johan W. Elzenga on 22 Jun 2005 05:21 Hecate <hecate(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for > >> >"serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with > >> >Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are > >> >handled? > >> > >> Yes. No, it'll just work more slowly ;-) > > > >Sigh. Here we go again... > > If someone asks the question... > > You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more > efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop. I know that Intel only produces chips and that right now the Mac G5 can hold its own against any Intel based PC. I have no idea what a future desktop Macintosh with an Intel chip will do. And I don't believe you can predict that future either. Besides, the question was NOT which system was faster or more cost effective. The question was twofold: 1. Do many still recommend the Mac for serious graphics work? Answer: Yes, many still do. YOU don't have to agree, though. 2. Will the user see any difference in how colors are handled? Answer: No, because that is handled by the system (ColorSync) so it doesn't depend on the chip. It's no different in a Mac G4 or G5, but those are also different chips (and manufacturers). So your 'funny' answer was the typical 'PC vs Mac' or 'Canon vs Nikon' reaction that is only meant to annoy 'the other camp'. I wish you wouldn't do that. There are enough flame wars as it is. -- Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
From: Hecate on 22 Jun 2005 17:52 On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:21:39 +0200, nomail(a)please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote: >> You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more >> efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop. > >I know that Intel only produces chips and that right now the Mac G5 can >hold its own against any Intel based PC. I have no idea what a future >desktop Macintosh with an Intel chip will do. And I don't believe you >can predict that future either. >Besides, the question was NOT which system was faster or more cost >effective. The question was twofold: > >1. Do many still recommend the Mac for serious graphics work? > Answer: Yes, many still do. YOU don't have to agree, though. > >2. Will the user see any difference in how colors are handled? > Answer: No, because that is handled by the system (ColorSync) > so it doesn't depend on the chip. It's no different in a Mac G4 > or G5, but those are also different chips (and manufacturers). > >So your 'funny' answer was the typical 'PC vs Mac' or 'Canon vs Nikon' >reaction that is only meant to annoy 'the other camp'. I wish you >wouldn't do that. There are enough flame wars as it is. As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware. -- Hecate - The Real One Hecate(a)newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
From: John McWilliams on 22 Jun 2005 18:20 Hecate wrote: > > As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is > DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I > think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as > they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware. Suspect all you want. If you have faith in your suspicions, shorting Intel stock and going long on AMD would be a smart move. Good luck. -- John McWilliams
From: Johan W. Elzenga on 23 Jun 2005 04:18 Hecate <hecate(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is > DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I > think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as > they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware. It's interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives. First Nikon, then Adobe and now Apple. Well, I have no desire to let the discussion go that way, in fact I have no desire for an 'Apple vs anything else' discussion at all. Just stop with the 'funny' remarks each time Apple is mentioned, and let's go back using this forum for PHOTOSHOP related issues, PLEASE. -- Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
From: Hecate on 23 Jun 2005 17:14
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:18:34 +0200, nomail(a)please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote: >Hecate <hecate(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >> As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is >> DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I >> think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as >> they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware. > >It's interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives. That's because I don't trust any major company as a matter of principle. That way I'm never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and it's board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the way. That's the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living in the real world. -- Hecate - The Real One Hecate(a)newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money you don't have, to impress people you don't like... |