 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Adobe digging own grave?
Apple's launch of "Aperture" is bad enough, but on the other side, how likely is it Adobe will release "Lightroom" for Windows platforms prior to "Vista" being released? Vista is now delayed until at least Jan. 2007 so wouldn't it be a good idea for them to release Lightroom for XP, at least before the actual product hits shelves for MACs? I've seen companies kill themselves before with bad decisions, Corel with Coreldraw being the most obvious. What are you going on about? 1.) Lightroom is fantastic software. Their free public beta has allowed it to become deeply entrenched in my workflow such that I'll have to buy it upon release no matter what the cost is. 2.) They've announced that a Win XP beta will be released in the next three months, well before it sees release at retail for any platform. 3.) What exactly would be suicidal about releasing a product geared toward creative professionals on the platform more creative professionals use before releasing it on another platform? This is a hypothetical question since I'm fairly certain they plan a simultaneous release of Mac and PC versions. 4.) Lightroom, success or failure, will have no bearing on Adobe's future whatsoever. Its percentage of Adobe's business is negligible, unlike Corel's with Draw. The largest concern, I would think, in the Windows community, would be that Lightroom won't be Vista-optimized, at least not immediately. But that doesn't seem to be your concern. Where's the meaningful Coreldraw analogy? >What are you going on about? > >1.) Lightroom is fantastic software. Their free public beta has allowed >it to become deeply entrenched in my workflow such that I'll have to >buy it upon release no matter what the cost is. It looks good, which is why I was wondering about it ported to Windows. >2.) They've announced that a Win XP beta will be released in the next >three months, well before it sees release at retail for any platform. I received no email stating an exact release date. Thanks! -Rich >>What are you going on about? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I received no email stating an exact release date. Thanks! >-Rich Lemme get this straight. You stumble across a software project that is in Beta. The announcement you found did not mention Windows version and, rather that check the Adobe Labs site, you assume it will be a Mac-only product. And then you leap to the astonishing conclusion that it is the equivalent to grave digging. And now you say, "It looks good, which is why I was wondering about it ported to Windows." What a maroon! >Lemme get this straight. You stumble across a software project that is >in Beta. The announcement you found did not mention Windows version [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What a maroon! Welcome to the land of rich. Just killfile him. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged and now essentially pointless computer maker. Actually release of Lightroom reflects not the prevailing use of Apple computers by "creative professionals" but the applecentric habits of Adobe's old guard of programmers and program designers. It is in fact a marketting error to release this program first on the Apple platform rather than the Windows platform. The market has moved irrevocably away from Apple in every way, shape and form. The total potential market size for Aperture on the Apple platform cannot even cover the cost of development of the software. It is a very curious development from a company that depends on Ipod for survival. The vast majority of those Ipods are interfaced through Windows computers. Aperture can hardly pose a threat to sales of Photoshop on any platform. It is not a new program but another "me too" program that reshuffles the same tools available elsewhere. If it works for you, great, but you will still have to go to Photoshop for full functionality. Note that Adobe has yet to release a version of Photshop for the new Macintel platform: anyone dumb enough to buy one of these will soon be dual booting into Windows anyway. The exact same box sold as a Windows machine is a fraction of the cost of the Apple branded box and carries a better waranty. And of course no one, including Apple, has released any real software for this platform, including Aperture. What does that tell you? Apple yet again abandons an architecture and OS but does not even bother (or lacks the marketing clout) to make sure there is native software for the new platform. The situation is even more dire than when Apple moved to a Unix model for their OS, the last time it abandoned its user base. As for Corel: Draw and Photopaint are the most mismarketed programs ever. Photopaint has always suffered from an even kludgier interface than Photoshop, making it even more difficult to use, but offers all the functions of Photoshop (except a few custom filters, like warp or perspective: available elsewhere as plug-ins) at a fraction of the cost. I think Adobe is in a lot better shape for the future than Apple. > It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the > deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged and > now essentially pointless computer maker. Yeah, you're right. I hear they're going out of business any day now. Just as soon as the kids stop using iPods. > > It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the > > deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged and > > now essentially pointless computer maker. > > Yeah, you're right. I hear they're going out of business any day now. > Just as soon as the kids stop using iPods. He was talking about computers, not hand held appliances.  SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com >> Yeah, you're right. I hear they're going out of business any day now. >> Just as soon as the kids stop using iPods. > > He was talking about computers, not hand held appliances. He has a valid point! If it weren't for the iPod Apple would be in financial ruin today since they weren't even scraping by with their computer sales. Rita > >> Yeah, you're right. I hear they're going out of business any day now. > >> Just as soon as the kids stop using iPods. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rita If being one of the few computer makers who were consistently in profit over the last few years is "scraping by", I guess that wasn't a bad state of affairs. My problem with Aperture is that I don't have sufficiently fast hardware to run it yet, so I'll give Lightroom a try instead. From: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/oct/11results.html Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results Apple Concludes Best Quarter & Best Year in Company History CUPERTINO, CaliforniaOctober 11, 2005Apple today announced financial results for its fiscal 2005 fourth quarter ended September 24, 2005, reporting the highest revenue and earnings in the Companys history. [snip] Apple shipped 1,236,000 Macintosh units and 6,451,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 48 percent growth in Macs and 220 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter. For fiscal 2005, the Company generated revenue of $13.93 billion and a net profit of $1.335 billion, reflecting annual growth of 68 percent and 384 percent, respectively, and representing the highest annual revenue and net profit in the Companys history. "Rita ? Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> Yeah, you're right. I hear they're going out of business any day now. >>> Just as soon as the kids stop using iPods. >> >> He was talking about computers, not hand held appliances. >He has a valid point! If it weren't for the iPod Apple would be in >financial ruin today since they weren't even scraping by with their computer >sales. This is well off topic so I'll only do this one post. The problem Apple had was that its computers were getting to be too slow. Much of their business was with outfits doing video or photographic work. There speed is essential. It is difficult to compare processors built on different architectures but by any measure Apple needed a speed increase. Sadly, IBM (who was manufacturing most if not all of their CPU chips) was unable to produce a faster chip. The move to Intel allows them to move up in speed. Having their own very fast operating system will give them a decided advantage. If their core software developers stay with them (Adobe being perhaps the prime example) they will be fine, at least over the near term. ---- Paul J. Gans > It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the > deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged > and now essentially pointless computer maker. Apple was always a proprietary system. Users who bought were tied into Appletalk, Applethis and Applethat. Indeed even if there was no need for technical differentiation Apples would be. This had two advantages to Apple: - Technical - no need to worry about compatibility with anything but your own stuff. Money saved in development. Marketing - users were tied in and so could be fleeced generating good profits. In the relatively open and competitive PC market prices and margins were relentlessly squeezed down. Apple went for the people who wanted the technology but didn't or couldn't understand it. Eventually the need to talk to other people in the world or even the same office pushed most users into the logical choice of buying a PC for regular work. Interestingly Adobe and its Acrobat are part of this world where one is not dependent on architecture or OS rather than the intentionally incompatible world of Apple. >> It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of >> the deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > not dependent on architecture or OS rather than the intentionally > incompatible world of Apple. apple have finally seen the light and gone to intel. Before they greedily stopped motorolla from selling their own clones of apple. Hopefully apple will be reduced to cool peripherals and a rather stable OS developer and leave the real hardware to intel and others. In effect being a decent rival to microsoft. There is enough anti micorosoft sentiment out there for people to try out the apple OS. Its how Linux has got as far as it has. I even tried it. Not enough plug and play support and not enough drivers available otherwise i found just as easy to adapt to. Knowing steve jobs though, if he is still involved with apple he'll probably do something stupid to stop people taking up Apple OS like some doohickey built into apples so the OS will only work on official apples. Worse still they will charge heavy licencning fees for any third party developer using the apple platform. Apple going to Intel is bad for one reason: Once M$ starts selling a "Mac"-optimized XP then Apple is just another hardware company. And being more expensive hardware means only that nobody buys more expensive hardware that does no more than the cheaper hardware. My prediction is that Apple will probably close its doors in 3-4 years, at least on the computer side. Apple's hope is that an investor with a half-billion who wants to fix the company would come in, buy out M$' portion, and fix the issues they have. The good hardware could be made more cheaply (ref. the Apple ][/][plus success story) and the OS bundled with it could be managed differently. Licensing competitive hardware won't solve the issues. Excited buyers will. But people need a reason. And it's always been the software. A practical parallel is the gaming market. While you buy hardware, it's the games that you're after. XBox is good, but it's Halo that makes it. The Apple][ was innovative, but it was VisiCalc that sold them. The IBM PC was suitable and well-built, but it was 1-2-3 applications brought a good portion of the sales explosion (along with Peachtree accounting). Hardware has to be good enough to run fantastic software. Apple's marketing didn't push hard enough on the clear advantage that Macs have with color management. Scan to screen to print without the calibration hassles of a PC. I know people in advertising who live by this feature. But with a PC you go out and spend a couple hundred extra on a monitor calibration sensor. Apple had a great idea with OS X. But marketing didn't have killer applications for it. No panacea for small business. No big speed increase or great games for the kids. No special nothing. So it just keeps floundering, flopping around like a dying fish. Enough ranting. That was fun. We all know what Apple needs, and it's not M$. It's a new paradigm. Collin > Apple going to Intel is bad for one reason: Once M$ starts selling a > "Mac"-optimized XP considering macs are now intel they already have mac optimised xp. > then Apple is just another hardware company. And being more expensive > hardware means > only that nobody buys more expensive hardware that does no more than > the cheaper hardware. Apart from the colourmanagement issue you mention at the end. For that alone i would be interested. > My prediction is that Apple will probably close its doors in 3-4 years, > at least on the computer side. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Excited buyers will. But people need a reason. And it's always been > the software. Swot i said. a stable reliable OS with lots of vendor support for drivers. Proper support that you can buy off the shelf. Linux is still a bit of a geek platform. > A practical parallel is the gaming market. While you buy hardware, > it's the games that you're after. > XBox is good, but it's Halo that makes it. The Apple][ was innovative, > but it was VisiCalc that > sold them. I don't know about that, the apple killer app was graphics. The IBM PC was suitable and well-built, but it was 1-2-3 > applications brought a good > portion of the sales explosion (along with Peachtree accounting). > Hardware has to be good > enough to run fantastic software. well now it will be. It was always good enough but simply overpriced. > Apple's marketing didn't push hard enough on the clear advantage that > Macs have with color [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spend a couple hundred extra > on a monitor calibration sensor. This is the first i've heard of this. I still know people who bought macs just for image manipulation but they still seemed pricey. > Apple had a great idea with OS X. But marketing didn't have killer > applications for it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Enough ranting. That was fun. Ease of use was always the selling point. Pcs for people who didn't understand pcs. When windows came along it closed the gap. However idiosyncracies of intel architecture such as irqs. The original x86 instruction set. ide v scsi apple were first with hot plug n play. i believe usb was theirs. Many people believe apple is more secure. virus technology and security hacks are aimed at microsoft. Lots of anti microsoft sentiment out there. On different groups i've visisted mac users boast not needing antivirus software. Not needing endless security updates. > We all know what Apple needs, and it's not M$. It's a new paradigm. > > Collin Didn't say it was M$. Intel is not quite synonomous with M$. Intel without M$ could mean less bloatware. More efficient memory usage. I would certainly give OSX a try after the x86 version comes out. It may be in a more user friendly retail form than current flavours of linux of which there are many. One centralised support base. Better vendor supported drivers. Like i said steve jobs or someone will rig OSx so it won't run on non apples somehow. > A practical parallel is the gaming market. While you buy hardware, > it's the games that you're after. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hardware has to be good > enough to run fantastic software. And Final Cut Pro HD is that fantastic software. We are buying Final Cut Pro edit stations by the dozens, and we're saving tons of money doing so because the alternatives from Pinnacle/Grass Valley/Avid/etc are over triple the price. Greg > Apple going to Intel is bad for one reason: Once M$ starts selling a > "Mac"-optimized XP [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My prediction is that Apple will probably close its doors in 3-4 years, > at least on the computer side. Have you ever accurately predicted anything? Yes. One of my more recent observations was McVeigh's conviction. Along with being obviously guilty it was predictable when two of the the three broadcast tv networks ran a Murder She Wrote and Columbo episodes which featured a "McVeigh" murderer. The conviction was forthcoming both in fact and in a predictable context. (Check the network records for broadcast dates in 1995. And, yes, I was living in the OKC area.) There's more, with historical basis. Inteested? Collin > Apple going to Intel is bad for one reason: Once M$ starts selling a > "Mac"-optimized XP > then Apple is just another hardware company. And being more expensive > hardware means Actually, one reason I switched to Apple (and I had Windows 1.0 and every version of DOS before that) was because the hardware had become competitive in price. > only that nobody buys more expensive hardware that does no more than > the cheaper hardware. > My prediction is that Apple will probably close its doors in 3-4 years, > at least on the computer side. Perhaps Windows will have caught up to OS X by then. http://tinyurl.com/bym89 I'm only sorry they decided to go with the corrupt Intel corporation instead of AMD. Going with AMD would have made more sense in two areas; Performance and the old ideal as Apple as upstart and renegade. But Intel knows how to be a whore, ask Dell. > I'm only sorry they decided to go with the corrupt Intel corporation > instead of AMD. > Going with AMD would have made more sense in two areas; Performance > and the old > ideal as Apple as upstart and renegade. But Intel knows how to be a > whore, ask Dell. AMD sucks. Always has and probably always will. Apple went with the people who know what they're doing. > This had two advantages to Apple: - > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > margins were relentlessly squeezed down. Apple went for the people who > wanted the technology but didn't or couldn't understand it. Both of those are major disadvantages - barrier to exit from a product for a consumer, especially a corporate consumer, translates directly to barrier to entry. People won't even try a technology if the barrier to entry excedes it's perceived benefits. That's why Apple's desktop offerings have never grown beyond a nich market despite the early consumer driven success of the Apple II. > Eventually the need to talk to other people in the world or even the same > office pushed most users into the logical choice of buying a PC for regular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dependent on architecture or OS rather than the intentionally incompatible > world of Apple. The internet seems to be making Apple computers more appealing as the ability to communicate with the outside world becomes standardized. For example, these days an email is an email - you can read it on any system. SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com > Both of those are major disadvantages - barrier to exit from a product for a > consumer, especially a corporate consumer, translates directly to barrier to > entry. Actually, when I switched to Mac last year, most software companies exchanged my Windows disks for OS X versions for free or a nominal cost to cover shipping. So the barrier is mostly imaginary. > > It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the > > deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged > > and now essentially pointless computer maker. > > Apple was always a proprietary system. Was being the operative word. Apple's OS is now the most open of all commercial operating systems, and with the move to Intel the hardware is pretty generic now, too. Greg >> > It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of > the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Was being the operative word. Apple's OS is now the most open of all > commercial operating systems, Really, or are you just not considering Linux as commercial? > and with the move to Intel the hardware is > pretty generic now, too. So you can just plug in drives, boards etc.? > Greg Really, was just trying to buy a scanner, our companies vendor, also the local Mac dealer said he didn't stock scanners any more. Reason 1 Staples and Best Buy were always underselling him Reason2 The Mac OS10 upgrades always change the scanner drivers and the scanner companies are constantly behind because Apple doesn't release the driver specs until well after the OS upgrade is released. So he cringes whenever an Aple customer buys a scanner, because as soon as the customer upgrades their OS he gets a call. Which comes to reason 3; Because of the hassle with Mac drivers scanner companies have cut back on their tech support, referring folks to their dealers. Don't really call this an open OS. Tom Well that's really interesting, as I've been using the same Epson 3200 scanner and 2200 printer and have not had to update any drivers for quite a while, at least one year, and I've been installing every upgrade of OSX as it arrives. Time to get a dealer who knows what they're talking about. >> It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the >> deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Appletalk, Applethis and Applethat. Indeed even if there was no need for >technical differentiation Apples would be. OS-X is UNIX Signature"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing." John C. Keats American Writer 1924-2000 > > It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the > > deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > margins were relentlessly squeezed down. Apple went for the people who > wanted the technology but didn't or couldn't understand it. The thing is, there is a fairly steady stream of Windows users who are switching to OS X. I used Windows for decades before finally switching to OS X last year. I think your characterization that Apple is for people who don't understand technology is way off base. The fact is, OS X is here now. Vista is delayed yet again and still will not be as secure as OS X. Now it will be 2007 before Vista is released. > Eventually the need to talk to other people in the world or even the same > office pushed most users into the logical choice of buying a PC for regular > work. Except that now all the Mac users are able to talk to PC users. In just under a year of using OS X I have yet to find a file incompatibility or a network that I cannot talk to. > Interestingly Adobe and its Acrobat are part of this world where one is not > dependent on architecture or OS rather than the intentionally incompatible > world of Apple. I think that paradigm of Apple being intentionally incompatible is gone forever. In fact, the reason I switched from Windows was because of my perception that Windows had become just as closed a system as Apple was, and that Apple had opened their system considerably. On 3.26.06 10:10 PM, in article 1143429015.410276.163180@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "cjcampbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote: > Apple went for the people who >> wanted the technology but didn't or couldn't understand it. I'd add "...or who didn't want to waste time on diddling around with crashes, incompatible hardware, driver installation, etc., or waiting from someone from support to do this, as opposed to doing what they were hired/are in business to do." > On 3.26.06 10:10 PM, in article > 1143429015.410276.163180@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "cjcampbell" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > someone from support to do this, as opposed to doing what they were > hired/are in business to do." That was certainly the case with Windows 3x through 98a, but is a thing of the past now. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > That [crashes] was certainly the case with Windows 3x through 98a, but is > a > thing of the past now. You must have a different XP from me, then, or are much more "gentle" than me with it. IE6 often crashes under it though I admit I've not had a blue-screen at home yet... Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > > That [crashes] was certainly the case with Windows 3x through 98a, but is > > a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > me with it. IE6 often crashes under it though I admit I've not had a > blue-screen at home yet... I've not had any IE problems, but my new $600 Vue Infiniti software closes up a bit more often than I would care for; but then some of the files I'm working with are several hundred megs and contain 3D models with polygon counts totalling into the _billions_. (here are two images I've recently created with the software said the braggart ;-) : http://www.mattclara.com/thbnyrd.html http://www.mattclara.com/awyfrmthngs.html) SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> On 3.26.06 10:10 PM, in article >> 1143429015.410276.163180@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "cjcampbell" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That was certainly the case with Windows 3x through 98a, but is a thing of >the past now. Care to come sort out all the problems we what a month back with Windows Server 2003. Sorry I help admin 40+ servers and all that was listed continues to be a problem plus all the security holes. Which I don't have with OS-X or Linux. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > >> On 3.26.06 10:10 PM, in article > >> 1143429015.410276.163180@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "cjcampbell" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > listed continues to be a problem plus all the security holes. Which I > don't have with OS-X or Linux. Damn, I read the whole thread and didn't realize we were talking about 40+ server configurations. I thought it was about computers for personal use. Speaking from this user's history, anyway, the problems listed are in the past. Every now and then, when I rebuild a system and load the OS, something goes wrong and the system is unstable. I usually catch it before I've gone to the trouble of personalizing the setup, and then I simply reinstall the OS. I've tried different installs of Linux, and I liked it ok, but didn't care for Wine, or the Photoshop alternative if you can't get it to perform in Wine, Gimp. And as I upgrade inexpensively by swapping out motherboards and CPUs, I'm unwilling to plonk several thousand down on a Mac I won't be able to upgrade in the same fashion, and for which I'd have to bu y all new software. So, I'm not putting either system down, I'm just saying, from my somewhat extensive, albeit personal and not professional, computer and home networking experience, windows XP is very stable, and with Kaspersky Antivirus and an inexpensive but fully configurable firewall, is very secure. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > > I'd add "...or who didn't want to waste time on diddling around with > > crashes, incompatible hardware, driver installation, etc., or waiting from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That was certainly the case with Windows 3x through 98a, but is a thing of > the past now. Which fails to explain why we've not been able to realize any IT cost savings in our group at work, as defined by a reduction in our co-located IT support staff. They cost us roughly $1500/year per supported XP Pro desktop, so Management should be all over this as a cost-savings measure...right? I do agree that XP does crash less frequently, but there's so much more effort now needed to try to keep a Windows desktops secure and clean, the bottom line hasn't really changed for the better. For a image-centric duty station, Window's poor color management controls are sufficient reason alone to look for viable alternatives such as Apple. Everything is going to have trade-offs somewhere...name your poison. -hh >> I'd add "...or who didn't want to waste time on diddling around with >> crashes, incompatible hardware, driver installation, etc., or waiting from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That was certainly the case with Windows 3x through 98a, but is a thing of >the past now. Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to use it resulted in an instant system reset, not even a blue screen, just a reset. And software was not even talking to the hardware yet. This was XP SP2. So much for improved stability. Of course, on the Internet I found an obscure Windows startup flag that could be tweaked to get it to work. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to use >it resulted in an instant system reset, not even a blue screen, just a >reset. And software was not even talking to the hardware yet. This was >XP SP2. Because NC has been in v 4.x for quite a while and is now up to 4.4 IIRC. I don't believe 3.5 is compatible with XP. -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com > >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to use > >it resulted in an instant system reset, not even a blue screen, just a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because NC has been in v 4.x for quite a while and is now up to 4.4 IIRC. I > don't believe 3.5 is compatible with XP. Nikon says its compatible - is that a good enough authority to dispell your belief? Historically, NikonCapture 3.5 was released in June 2002, which is more than six months after XP was released to the public. Nikon's press release explicitly states compatibiliy with XP, as well as several other legacy Windows OS's: "Pre-installed versions of Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional." Citation: http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/software/index.htm Of course, what is now expected to follow is that the professional MS-Apologists will blame SP2 for "breaking" the application. Sorry, but SP's are still part of the OS. Furthermore, its not particularly ethical to blame OS flaws on the application writers who faithfully followed the OS's published design/API standards. -hh >> >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to >> >use it resulted in an instant system reset, not even a blue screen, just [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ethical to blame OS flaws on the application writers who faithfully > followed the OS's published design/API standards. You assume that they did in fact faithfully do that. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to use > >it resulted in an instant system reset, not even a blue screen, just a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because NC has been in v 4.x for quite a while and is now up to 4.4 IIRC. I > don't believe 3.5 is compatible with XP. You are confused. Nikon Capture 3.5 will not run on OS X. It crashes Windows XP with SP2. Ver. 3.5 has the almost unique distinction of being incompatible with all operating systems. You cannot buy a more recent version than 3.5. Nikon expects you to buy this version and install updates. The problem is Nikon's idiotic copy protection scheme for a program that really ought to be included free with every DSLR (and then most people would be paying too much for it). The updates do not install reliably, either, although if you finally get it installed and all the updates installed then Nikon Capture will at least run without tripping a GPF in Windows or a kernel panic in OS X. Barely. It is truly a nasty piece of software. Nikon has recently announced a new version of Capture. Initial reports are not positive, but we shall see. >> >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to >> >use [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Nikon has recently announced a new version of Capture. Initial reports > are not positive, but we shall see. If by "new version" you mean the very recently announced one done by NIK, I'd like to read this "not positive" review you seem to have access to. Care to post a URL so we can all become as informed as you apparently are. Bob > >> >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying to > >> >use [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I'd like to read this "not positive" review you seem to have access to. > Care to post a URL so we can all become as informed as you apparently are. I am not referring to a review. First of all, I think this software should be free and included with Nikon's DSLRs, as I said. It appears that Nikon is going to continue to sell NX separately. Nikon's announcement says nothing about getting rid of the hated copy protection scheme which corrupts Windows registries and even does weird things to OS X. It will also be interesting to see if Nikon continues its practice of installing a less capable RAW converter in Photoshop. I will grant that Capture NX has an impressive list of new features that I am anxiously waiting to see. And at least Nikon will finally stop selling people a version that does not work on any operating system. Maybe. As I said, we shall see. >> >> >Well, I bought a copy of NikonCapture 3.5 about a month ago. Trying >> >> >to [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > things to OS X. It will also be interesting to see if Nikon continues > its practice of installing a less capable RAW converter in Photoshop. So just so we all understand -- and to summarize: These "Initial reports" which are so "not positive" are a figment of your own imagination growing from your current dissatisfaction with Nikon's marketing practices and their admittedly not great current Capture operation. Silly me -- I naturally assumed you had some actual exposure to the new Capture which you deemed "not positive". Obviously I have to learn to pay less attention. > I will grant that Capture NX has an impressive list of new features > that I am anxiously waiting to see. And at least Nikon will finally > stop selling people a version that does not work on any operating > system. Maybe. As I said, we shall see. Apparently we shall!! Bob > > I will grant that Capture NX has an impressive list of new features > > that I am anxiously waiting to see. And at least Nikon will finally > > stop selling people a version that does not work on any operating > > system. Maybe. As I said, we shall see. > > Apparently we shall!! I am really hoping that I am wrong, you know. I want Capture NX to be the greatest photo editing app ever. But I am really soured by past experiences with Nikon's software. > >> I'd add "...or who didn't want to waste time on diddling around with > >> crashes, incompatible hardware, driver installation, etc., or waiting from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So much for improved stability. Philip, get a life. One problem does not make an unstable OS. >> So much for improved stability. > >Philip, get a life. One problem does not make an unstable OS. You would just happily call either Nikon of M$ support to find out why the piece of software you just bought doesn't work? It was a good lesson. I assumed that Windows improved to the point that you can just buy some software and expect it to work (just like I expected my Matrox video card to work under Win98). Well, it doesn't seem to work like that. So I should just stick to the operating systems I know. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>> So much for improved stability. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, it doesn't seem to work like that. So I should just stick to the > operating systems I know. Based on a single sample (i.e. you have problems with just one piece of software) it would be much more logical to conclude there's a problem with the software than with the operating system. I must say, I've always thought you pretty level headed, but there seems to be more than a hint of bias here...seems you are but human after all! ;-) Finally, Windows has comes leaps and bounds since 98a. I'm not saying it's the most elegant, or it's the best, but it is the most ubiquitous, and from where I'm standing (and I am the default computer tech at work, just because I'm the webmaster, so I'm aware of what's going on with a lot of windows based computers, not just my own) it's more than stable enough for full on professional work. I do 3D work on mine, and I don't know a single thing more taxing than that on a computer. When I got back from England last summer, I turned my computer on and used it just as I always do, and when I went to shut it down again (thunderstorm) I happened to check my network connection (cable, always on) which indicated I'd been connected for 43 days and some odd hours and minutes. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >Based on a single sample (i.e. you have problems with just one piece of >software) it would be much more logical to conclude there's a problem with >the software than with the operating system. Well, all the reports suggest that it only breaks with SP2. You can't just go and introduce new features in 'service packs' that cause these kinds of problems. >I must say, I've always thought you pretty level headed, but there seems to >be more than a hint of bias here...seems you are but human after all! ;-) Yes, I hate Windows with a passion. Fortunately, I can avoid Windows 99% of the time. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >Based on a single sample (i.e. you have problems with just one piece of > >software) it would be much more logical to conclude there's a problem with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > go and introduce new features in 'service packs' that cause these kinds of > problems. Of course, there were all those Panther applications that would not run on Tiger. And there are numerous applications that would run on Tiger but on minor updates such as 10.4.3. So Windows definitely does not have a monopoly on updates that will not run applications released prior to the update. In fact, Aperture 1.1 was supposed to be released in March, but it apparently has been put on hold to make sure that release is compatible with OS X 10.4.6, which is about to be released. If Apple is concerned that Aperture will not run on the new OS X update, what does that say about third party applications? Here we go again.... Still, at least there are very few applications (with the notable exception of Symantec's Internet Security software) that will actually cause a kernel panic on OS X (the gray screen of death), they are known and easily avoided. Windows is much more likely to crash from an unrecoverable general protection fault (the blue screen of death). And at the rate that Vista (originally scheduled for release in 2003) keeps getting pushed back, you have to wonder if Microsoft is ever going to get this monster to run. At the very least, Leopard will be out before Vista is. Perhaps that is what Microsoft is waiting for: to see if there are any new features in Leopard that they will want to include in Vista. :-) (Even if Microsoft OS X, er, Vista's copying of Tiger's features is incomplete and poorly implemented -- and it still will not be as stable.) In fact, Microsoft has admitted that at least 60% of Vista will have to be re-written before it is released. By that time Apple (or whatever they are calling themselves by then) will have just about run out of names for their OS and we will be installing updates calling themselves Ragdoll Kitty or Puff. In the meantime you can see Microsoft's demo of Vista's features here: http://tauquil.com/archives/2006/01/06/re-introducing-the-real-windows-vista/ If it all looks vaguely familiar to Mac users.... :-) I especially like the third demo on the page, where the Microsoft guy talks about iPhoto, er, Vista's built in photo management tool. It is worth watching just to see the old photos of Bill Gates, but all three demos are hysterically funny. > In fact, Aperture 1.1 was supposed to be released in March, but it > apparently has been put on hold to make sure that release is compatible > with OS X 10.4.6, which is about to be released. If Apple is concerned > that Aperture will not run on the new OS X update, what does that say > about third party applications? Here we go again.... last time i checked, it is march for two more days. :) they could release it late friday night and still hold to their initial promise. nevertheless, the aperture web page now says 'soon.' also, from what i understand, aperture 1.1 requires 10.4.6. > > In fact, Aperture 1.1 was supposed to be released in March, but it > > apparently has been put on hold to make sure that release is compatible [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nevertheless, the aperture web page now says 'soon.' also, from what i > understand, aperture 1.1 requires 10.4.6. It is the 30th already here in the Philippines. So one more day. :-) Right, it will now be released 'soon' instead of in March. Which I don't have a serious problem with, really. Aperture was definitely released before it was ready. I would hope that Apple will not make the same mistake with 1.1. > > last time i checked, it is march for two more days. :) they could > > release it late friday night and still hold to their initial promise. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > released before it was ready. I would hope that Apple will not make the > same mistake with 1.1. you mean like everything else they ship? :) > > > last time i checked, it is march for two more days. :) they could > > > release it late friday night and still hold to their initial promise. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > you mean like everything else they ship? :) Well, it really says something when a beta version of Lightroom runs faster and with more stability than Aperture. On 3.29.06 9:41 PM, in article 1143686475.335151.280110@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "cjcampbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote: > Of course, there were all those Panther applications that would not run > on Tiger. And there are numerous applications that would run on Tiger > but on minor updates such as 10.4.3. Such as...? > >> I'd add "...or who didn't want to waste time on diddling around with > >> crashes, incompatible hardware, driver installation, etc., or waiting from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So much for improved stability. Right. OS X isolates that so that Nikon Capture 3.5 simply does not run. :-) But enough of trashing Nikon Capture, the only photo editing software I have ever seen that will not run on any operating system. >It is habit and computer naivete that keeps Apple's core users part of the >deservedly shrinking market share for this almost criminally mismanaged and >now essentially pointless computer maker. Another Windows cultist SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Not necessarily. If he runs standard stuff there's often nothing to worry about. He says that he is "at home". It's in the workplace where the problems arise because we demand so much more from the OS. We all know the issues with SMS and all of the other things that must be fussed with. So we mix environments, using Unix of one flavor or another because M$ doesn't fully comprehend the issue of stability, middle-ware, and especially "mixed". They're a marketing company -- they sell stuff whether it works well or not. (MS SQL Server is a "good" product, though still doesn't compare to Oracle or DB2 or any other "real" RDBMS.) What they're missing is a sense that the customer is actually "important". They've got so much money rolling in that their perspective does not appear to be adequate to the task at hand. Collin KC8TKA > Not necessarily. If he runs standard stuff there's often nothing to > worry about. He says that he is "at home". > > It's in the workplace where the problems arise because we demand so > much more from the OS. Baloney. Workplace applications rarely demand much from a computer unless you are into graphic design or something like that. Video games place far greater demands on computers. Take a look at the type of machines usually sold as business computers compared to home computers: less memory, slower processors, less capable graphics cards, etc. The one thing business does is networking, but a lot of homes are doing that now, too. Plus home computers run joysticks, flight simulator stations, and all kinds of other peripherals that you would never see in a business. Please don't change the subject. Not workplace applications - the workplace environment. The os has to content with modifications from SMS and all the other network *features* they offer. Collin KC8TKA http://www.brendemuehl.net > Please don't change the subject. > Not workplace applications - the workplace environment. > The os has to content with modifications from SMS and all the other > network *features* they offer. The worst part of the workplace environment I have to deal with is the users -- the ones who download spyware and garbage files or who don't even know how to find a file they saved and then come running to me denying that they did anything. Yeah, like the Explorer toolbar add-on which looks real cute but bogs down their system got there by itself. But these users have home computers, too, and no one to rescue them there. That is where they learned to like the little Explorer toolbar add-on. I have to really think that the home environment is just like the workplace environment without the safety net of competent help. Here I am doing volunteer work for the church. I thought I retired, but all that really happened was that they stopped paying me. :-) Use any Adobe products than the free pdf reader Rich? Signature"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men." Samuel Johnson "Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.