|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/14/2007
|
Which means that this time at last, the father exceeds the synchronisation degree of the kids with the modern world - heheee!
But be careful if you should buy a Mac some day. The kids' PCs might fall in digital coma when seeing the Mac, resulting in heavy psychical stress for them. :-)
No, seriously now, it seems that Vista is really "Wow" and so I wish you much fun working with it.
Have a nice "Wow" and and even nicer day,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/13/2007
|
So far, so good with Vista.
It really is "Wow" for me at home because I was still hanging on to Win98. Both my Son's have WinXP on their systems, so it isn't as big a shock for them. This is the first time I've ever had anything more current than my kids :):)
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/13/2007
|
I started with Windows too, Andre, then I used a Mc once and that was it. As about the OS for the PC, well, since there is not such a strong strandardisation like on the Mac, it is clear that it is much harder to make software that would fit any combination of hardware - i.e. mainboard, disk, RAM, graphics, and so on. The good thing is that anybody can produce such hardware pieces and sell them, but of course the not so good thing is that there are so many distinct cases that such upgrades, updates amd nodifications just can't be unavoidable. Apple does the opposite. It buys its hardware (or produces it itself), makes some models of Macs, and so its much easier to have an OS that just runs, since the number of different models is not so big.
Anyway, have fun with Vista - oops, sorry! I mean of course, have "wow!" with Vista, as MS says. ;-)
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/13/2007
|
Hi Nick,
I have perservered with Windows since the days of 3.1 (which still works fine in most respects)
Mostly because that is what we used at work and I became familiar with it first. Once they get their hooks into you, it's hard to change :)
I have to say that I thought this transition to Vista was going to be a real pain. It was for a week or two. Downloading upgrades for most hardware and software. I'm just taking it a little at a time and now doesn't seem as bad as I thought. A few custom installs were needed to make some things Vista compatible.
I'll keep you posted on how things progress when I get used to it. For the time being, I'm still hoping back and forth between the old and new computers. Staying more and more with the new one:)
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/11/2007
|
What? Not a Mac? How dare you? ;-)
But seriously, if it works it's just fine. Though of course I must mention that Vista of today is what Mac OS X was some years ago ;-) OK, OK, don't shoot, I am only joking!
About "Floral", well, let's say that it stands for anything with plants. I also think that this was the intention of those who decided what categories to include, since only flowers would be a bit too narrow.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/11/2007
|
Hi Nick,
Sorry... not a Mac, but a Vista loaded pc. This Vista system seems to have a lot of media focused toys. Still getting used to it. So far, so good!
The small Oxford dictionary that I just picked up describes Floral as "of or decorated with flowers"
Oh well... I think I'll still put my plants in the Floral category :) Your image above is certainly close enough :)
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/10/2007
|
Just tell me that your new computer is a Mac, Andre? ;-) But no, it is simple Vista... oh well, nice OS ;-)
OK, OK, I am a Mac-man! :-)
About the categories, I also understand the word "floral" as a rather wide category about plants whatsoever - from grass to trees. But what does "floral" really means? I connect flora to anything that is a plant, but is it perhaps meant "only" for flowers and such? What does it mean from the semantical point of view?
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 3/6/2007
|
Hi Nick,
It sure looks Floral enough to me!! I have been doing exactly the same as you when it comes to plants, leaves and other assorted vegetable life. I have no problem placing them in the floral category. Maybe some might argue that leaves don't belong, but what else suits this image better?
I will be back to comment a bit more in depth on some of your other images later on. I have just purchased a nice new computer that is taking up a lot of my time for the present. Almost everything has to be changed or upgraded to work with Windows Vista. But it is going very smoothly so far.
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/3/2007
|
Oops, forgot to thank you for yet another thing! Until now I interpreted flasely the world "floral" as something that has to do with plants in general rather than with flowers. But your comment made me search again for the meaning of the word. So now I know a but more - thank you for enlightening my mind!
The questin that emerges then is, shouldn't there be some category of photos that does not only include flowers but also any plants whatsoever? The category "nature" is a bit too wide for that, and the category"florals" is a bit too narrow. Only my two cents.
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/3/2007
|
Thank you very very much for the intriguing comment, Salvador! Actually I like the scholastics not for their interpretation of the physical but rather for putting the fundaments of the formal that doesn't always have to be physical as well. The distinction between the logically possible from the physically possible was of striking importance for any self-referential mathematical work at all, and so I can only feel very happy for your comment!
Thank you very very very much!
Let's go now for a self-referential photographic weekend! ;-)
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Salvador Marķa Lozada
{K:69375} 3/3/2007
|
A very nice image, Nick. The leaves look like flowers against the sky. An excellent floral without flowers, almost a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO, as the Scholastics used to say. Congrats.
Salvador
|
|
0 
