Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!



> > A large part of my business deals with 3D
> > animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics.
> > You may call these desktop systems, I call these
> > production systems.
>
> I call them desktop systems, within the context of this discussion.

If you consider a state-of-the-art $10k Intel-based workstation a desktop,
then what is your old NT box? A peashooter?

> > In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt
> > you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade
> > their systems, especially if their livelihood
> > depends on it.
>
> I agree.  In cases like that, you just don't upgrade at all.

Some people upgrade, others will buy new systems. Personally, I don't know
any photographers, scanner operators, or prepress houses that are running
computers more than two years old; most are likely to be running fairly
current technology.

> > But they will upgrade often to take advantage
> > of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades.
>
> Not if they need the system up and running continuously as a business
necessity.

Several clients are running JD Edwards as their "mission critical"
application, and their upgrades are frequent and numerous, at least several
times per year. The upgrades take minutes, not years. Of course, in the
context of this newsgroup, this doesn't apply. I just wanted to point out
that you're wrong.

> > Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA
> > and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps
> > you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate
> > newsgroup.
>
> They are no less appropriate to discuss than desktop systems.  The
original
> point, after all, was that rebuilding a system from scratch just to
accommodate
> a new scanner isn't practical, and Nikon blew it by making its new
scanners
> incompatible with the old ones--a mistake it has never made with its
cameras.

I don't see anyone on this list, other than you, complaining about the new
Nikon scanner interface. And as far as Nikon is concerned, their scanners
sales are doing really well. You'd be hard pressed to convince them that
they blew it, other than in not having enough manufacturing capacity to meet
demand.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.