OT: LCD vs. CRT

[Charles Martin]

> From: good-dog at northshore.net
> Chas, you crack me up.  It's so true.  He's thinking of the original OS
> X, probably, when it was first released or was in Beta.  He's a great
> guy with obsolete information.  Is it that with Quark being so behind
> in going to OS X, this is his hang up?  Quark is their mainstay.
>
I want to correct the impression some people might have gotten that 
there is no good reason *at all* for not moving to OS X. Of course 
there are good reasons for not moving to OS X. Some people have 
*excellent* reasons for not moving to OS X (in the short term, anyway) 
and I respect them.

But saying "it's not stable" isn't one of them.

OTOH, saying "we're waiting for Quark to come out with an OS X native 
version" is a reasonably acceptable one. Personally, I keep Classic in 
the background and use Quark whenever I need to (less and less often, 
thanks to InDesign) and version 5.0 seems to work *flawlessly* and VERY 
quickly in Classic. Since Acrobat Distiller is *also* not ready for OS 
X, the use of Classic for these two apps works very well for me. I have 
Classic set to "sleep" after five minutes of non-use so it *never* bogs 
me down when I'm not using it. Your art dept head might consider this.

A better reason not to move to OS X would be something like "our 
scanners aren't yet/will never be supported" or "the Photoshop plugins 
we depend on aren't OS X ready yet." These are very good reasons to 
stick with 9 for a while yet. You tell him I said he needs to visit the 
OS X Excuse jar and get a fresh batch -- his current ones are stale. :)

> I sent her links to your website with
> the hysterical and educational articles about MS.  I asked her to
> comment about your assertions and observations.  She's never gotten
> back to me.  Too funny.
>>

At the risk of sounding like I'm tooting my own horn, here's a sample 
of what Rick is talking about if you're curious:

http://thechasbah.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_thechasbah_archive.html

Be sure to check out the links. My blog is amusing, but the reality of 
Microsoft is so scary it's hilarious.

> Since there may be a "cheap" factor going on here, does this affect the
> quality of LCD I might get?

Yes. Analog LCDs (read: most PC models) are fuzzy and although they 
don't flicker (which seems to be your main problem), they look 
considerably worse than nice all-digital monitors like Apple's. If 
possible, see if you can go for an all digital solution (involves a DVI 
video card AND the monitor rather than just the monitor).

> If I need to request a certain brand, let me know if anyone
> has a suggestion.  You can CC me at gooddogcomics at mac.com since I can
> check that from work.  I'd prefer to get the ball rolling on this right
> away.
>
I'd suggest Apple. :)

_Chas_

"The Box said 'Windows 95 or better' ... so I got a Macintosh."