Dito to what Badri stated (see below).  For those of us who work constantly
with graphics and images, nothing beats the Mac (except if you can afford
around at least 20K for a good SiliconGaraphics workstation and willing to
put in long hours of learining and training).  I too have worked with
Macs, PCs and SiliconGraphics, and in my humble oppinion, PCs do not hold a
candle to the Mac.  Statements like the ones made by Mr. Cork has been
around for years.  However, as we have seen the Macs not only have stayed
around, but they have become a lot better, out-pacing the PCs by far.  And
remember, the Mac is the only computer that can read and write both Mac and
PC disks.  I have found this to be extremely useful for an Image Analysis
Facility.   And, with free-wares like ImageConverter, NIH-Image and
moderately priced commercial softwares like Adobe Photoshop, you can import
and export images for just about any platform and application.  But, only
the MacOS can take advantage of all this.
 
The above was my two cents worth.
 
>>I would not invest in a Mac at present as they may not be around for much
>>longer.
>>PCs are getting better all the time and there is planty of software available.
>
>
>People in the sales business have an interesting technical
>term for comments like this: "FUD"
>for "Fear, Uncertaintly, and Doubt". It is considered a potent tool
>to woo customers away from a competitor.... ::))
>
>Anyway, I too haven't found a satisfactory PC-based alternative to NIH Image.
>
>As to macs, I think they will do very well.. I can say this after just
>going through the purchase of a Power Mac and an IBM Thinkpad. I am still
>trying to figure out how to make the latter work, after three weeks!!
>
>Badri Roysam
 
Sincerely,
 
Kamiar Moin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Pharmacology
Wayne State University School of Medicine
Detroit, MI 48201
 
Tel:  (313)577-0514
        (313)577-1112
FAX: (313)577-6739
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]