Thank you, George... It needed to be said, and you did it. keith whaley
George Sinos wrote: > > 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> > > ------------------------------
