Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-58 [...] &tag=mymsn

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PanHandler wrote:
> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-58 [...] &tag=mymsn
 
I'm not sure that's a good move.
 
They should have talked to Adobe, or perhaps another graphics SOFTWARE  
company, in my opinion.
 
In my experience, Canon isn't all too great at anything in the realm of  
software.
Maybe they'll surprise me, but it took them YEARS to finally come up with an  
image browser that was better than a total clunker.  Great cameras that I'm  
glad I use, but my faith in their software needs boosting.
 
But never mind my harsh criticism of Canon in this regard...  I'm sure many  
here will STILL call me (along with ANY Canon user) a "sheep" or "shill"  
etc.
 
(Yawn)
 

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> PanHandler wrote:
>  
>>http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5861541.html?part=msn&subj=ns_2543&tag=mymsn
>  
>  
> I'm not sure that's a good move.
>  
> They should have talked to Adobe, or perhaps another graphics SOFTWARE  
> company, in my opinion.
>  
> In my experience, Canon isn't all too great at anything in the realm of  
> software.
> Maybe they'll surprise me, but it took them YEARS to finally come up with an  
> image browser that was better than a total clunker.  Great cameras that I'm  
> glad I use, but my faith in their software needs boosting.
>  
> But never mind my harsh criticism of Canon in this regard...  I'm sure many  
> here will STILL call me (along with ANY Canon user) a "sheep" or "shill"  
> etc.
>  
> (Yawn)
>  
>  
 
 
The article is not too specific, but I would think it meant hardware  
support so Canon makes good sense as they make both cameras and  
printers. ICC works okay but do need a bit of knowhow. The major problem  
I have and many people are the video card/monitor not calibrated, not  
even remotely close.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:58:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> who has gone into hiding wrote:
 
> But never mind my harsh criticism of Canon in this regard...  
> I'm sure many here will STILL call me (along with ANY Canon user)
> a "sheep" or "shill"  
> etc.
 
  A very shilly sheep.
 
 
> (Yawn)
 
  Baah

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message  
news:C5OVe.14074$sx2.13660@fed1read02...
> PanHandler wrote:
>> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-58 [...] &tag=mymsn
>
> I'm not sure that's a good move.
>
> They should have talked to Adobe, or perhaps another graphics SOFTWARE  
> company, in my opinion.
>
> In my experience, Canon isn't all too great at anything in the realm of  
> software.
 
 
This is actually an excellent strategic move by both companies.  In most  
cases the current technologies/software's are only used as a stop gap while  
the two companies create an entirely new suite of software's/firmware's for  
the future.  In MS's case they almost always partner with companies who can  
help them get their foot in the door and then just take over eventually  
tossing out the partners software for MS's in house software.  This exact  
strategy was done with Wang/Kodak in the early 90s with Tiff viewer and  
scanner driver technology which eventually evolved into MSs WIA technology.  
Fact is MS was already working on WIA but it was behind schedule and MS saw  
the need to get into the paper imaging field.  The stop gap was Wang/Kodak.  
Got MS a viewer and all us in the paper imaging industry looking at what MS  
as going to do and providing feed back as MS evolved their wares.
 
What canon provides that Adobe doesn't is a huge all inclusive imaging  
market.  I'll bet this partnership goes beyond digi cams to printers,  
copiers, scanners, and any other digital imaging equipment Canon has, after  
all I don't think anyone would argue that when added together Canon holds  
the market share in these markets.  Adobe doesn't even come close and what  
MS wants is the user base not the best technology.  After they get the user  
base they'll work to provide adequate technology to suit everyone.  Once  
that's done other manufacture can choose to use it or not, at that point MS  
could care less.  Again just like WIA.
 
What canon gets is the chance to be come the defacto standard as their  
technologies and devices become internalized in future versions of Windows.  
Again Canon gains a huge marked share of all us MS windows users and  
specifically because they are not good at writing software, they get a  
partner who will eventually write all the software that is needed and Canon  
can do what it does best, build hardware.
 
What needs to occur now is for Apple to complete the Intel port of OSX and  
then partner with Adobe and Minolta or Fuji and come up with a competitive  
technology for digital imaging.  This way we're not all locked into one  
technology and the two of them have an incentive to make adequate technology  
outstanding.
 
JMHO.
--
 
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:28:25 -0500
In message <McCVe.608$7E5.188@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
"PanHandler" <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
 
> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-58 [...] &tag=mymsn  
 
This only means one thing:  Microsoft will ruin any hope of
solidifying a standard by creating an API that will not function to
specification and will always change with every windows update.
 
Jeff

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"½ Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message  
news:fnihi19shm728febcitdu8kpim0u20e1k4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:28:25 -0500
> In message <McCVe.608$7E5.188@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
> "PanHandler" <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-58 [...] &tag=mymsn
>
> This only means one thing:  Microsoft will ruin any hope of
> solidifying a standard by creating an API that will not function to
> specification and will always change with every windows update.
>
>
 
 
However everyone will use it so it will become the standard.
 
--
 
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <eKudnRCLYMORUrXeRVn-qA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
> However everyone will use it so it will become the standard.
 
Not on my Macintosh...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message  
news:140920051908156499%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <eKudnRCLYMORUrXeRVn-qA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However everyone will use it so it will become the standard.
>
> Not on my Macintosh...
 
True True.  But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel  No telling what will  
happen then.
 
--
 
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <YLCdncgATO0RQrXeRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
> True True.  But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel  No telling what will  
> happen then.
 
It's just another CPU. The garbage of the platform is Windows, not the
chip it runs on (well, unless it's AMD).
 
I was reading this morning that the next version of OS X for Intel that
will be soon released to developers gets the performance up to where
it's at on the Mac today.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:29:27 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
 
> In article <YLCdncgATO0RQrXeRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  
>> True True.  But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel  No telling what will  
>> happen then.
>  
> It's just another CPU. The garbage of the platform is Windows, not the
> chip it runs on (well, unless it's AMD).
>  
> I was reading this morning that the next version of OS X for Intel that
> will be soon released to developers gets the performance up to where
> it's at on the Mac today.
I have used a couple of AMD chips and then run well. I don't use windows
as I use Mandriva (2006 0.4) which is more reliable.
--  
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:
 
>True True.  But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel  No telling what will  
>happen then.
 
From what I've read so far, the Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac, not
a PC.  The motherboard and chipsets and packaging are likely to remain
distinctive to Apple, and incompatible with the PC standard.  So Windows
probably won't run on an Intel-based Mac (except via emulation), and OS X  
probably won't run on a PC.  (And Linux will eventually run on both)
 
 Dave

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dgdn05$mt7$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
<davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
 
> From what I've read so far, the Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac, not
> a PC.  The motherboard and chipsets and packaging are likely to remain
> distinctive to Apple, and incompatible with the PC standard.  So Windows
> probably won't run on an Intel-based Mac (except via emulation), and OS X  
> probably won't run on a PC.  (And Linux will eventually run on both)
 
All the facts aren't out yet, but it's expected that a Mactel will be
able to run Windows out-of-the-box, but a regular PC won't be able to
run OS X.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message  
news:160920050543436598%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <dgdn05$mt7$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
> <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>> From what I've read so far, the Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac, not
>> a PC.  The motherboard and chipsets and packaging are likely to remain
>> distinctive to Apple, and incompatible with the PC standard.  So Windows
>> probably won't run on an Intel-based Mac (except via emulation), and OS X
>> probably won't run on a PC.  (And Linux will eventually run on both)
>
> All the facts aren't out yet, but it's expected that a Mactel will be
> able to run Windows out-of-the-box, but a regular PC won't be able to
> run OS X.
 
If this turns out to be true, Apple will continue to remain a distant 2nd to  
MS and Ol' Steve Jobs will continue to waist opportunities to provide real  
competition in the market place.
 
--
 
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <F7udnQIRhaquVrfeRVn-rg@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
> If this turns out to be true, Apple will continue to remain a distant 2nd to  
> MS and Ol' Steve Jobs will continue to waist opportunities to provide real  
> competition in the market place.
 
And allowing OS X to run on garden variety PCs would kill Apple
hardware sales.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve  
> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse  
> and stop being a control freak.  I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he  
> didn't do this years ago.  I want REAL competition in the market place but  
> it's just not there because no one has gone after the current install  
> base.
 
 
If they did that they would not be Apple. IBM having no faith in the idea of  
personal computers was going for a few quick bucks and built the first PC  
with mostly off the shelf parts. Getting all the parts working together is a  
chore and it's only gotten worse. Apple has kept control over all this and  
their computers tend to have fewer problems. But, the downside to this is  
that licensing raises the price of Macs, and forget about upgrades...you  
just toss the old computer and replace everything...including expensive  
software. With PCs we just upgrade the parts that are outdated...and go  
through all we have to deal with to get them to work together. It usually  
works, or course...but I know I have some parts sitting around that I could  
never get to work.
 
If Jobs were to let go of control then the Mac would be more like a PC with  
all the problems...and people who don't know computers will start making the  
same complaints they have about PCs.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message  
news:QF3Xe.4928$nV1.1384@trnddc06...
>> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve  
>> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse  
>> and stop being a control freak.  I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he  
>> didn't do this years ago.  I want REAL competition in the market place  
>> but it's just not there because no one has gone after the current install  
>> base.
>
>
> If they did that they would not be Apple. IBM having no faith in the idea  
> of personal computers was going for a few quick bucks and built the first  
> PC with mostly off the shelf parts. Getting all the parts working together  
> is a chore and it's only gotten worse. Apple has kept control over all  
> this and their computers tend to have fewer problems. But, the downside to  
> this is that licensing raises the price of Macs, and forget about  
> upgrades...you just toss the old computer and replace  
> everything...including expensive software. With PCs we just upgrade the  
> parts that are outdated...and go through all we have to deal with to get  
> them to work together. It usually works, or course...but I know I have  
> some parts sitting around that I could never get to work.
>
> If Jobs were to let go of control then the Mac would be more like a PC  
> with all the problems...and people who don't know computers will start  
> making the same complaints they have about PCs.
 
If this were several years ago I'd agree completely but I rarely get support  
calls regarding Hardware related problems anymore.  99% of the support  
issues I deal with are software related, mostly OS related.  PC hardware has  
matured past the old issues of IRQ conflicts, driver availability,  
installation complexity etc.
 
Besides if Jobs wants to continue to provide "Pure" MACs more power to him.  
Those uses who don't want to risk hardware related problems can pay the  
premium for Genuine MAC equipment.  My point is that if Job's, Apple, and  
MAC users really want to see what they call a superior platform be a real  
player in the market they should insure that OSX and all the software will  
run on current Intel hardware or ALL future Intel hardware.  I'm not even  
suggesting legacy (1-2 year old hardware.)  If they choose to go down the  
proprietary but Intel route they will have achieved nothing in the market  
place other then replacing their chip manufacture.  The last thing we need  
in the market is a Wintel and an Apptel.   We need Intel (and preferably  
other chip manufactures) and then the choice of OSX or Windows.
 
--
 
Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <-pidncL_IuuaILHeRVn-jA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
> The iPod doesn't even equate.  It's a cheap dollar disposable consumer good  
> compared to corporate investment in computer technology.   Their  are  
> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve  
> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse and  
> stop being a control freak.  I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he didn't do  
> this years ago.  I want REAL competition in the market place but it's just  
> not there because no one has gone after the current install base.
 
Once the Mactel switch is complete, what would be the motivation to buy
an Apple-branded computer if you can run OS X on an e-Machine?