or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bikertwin

Good post. That all makes a lot of sense. My only concern now is XBox and IBM's chips. Is Microsoft trying to become Apple (integrated hardware and software vendor) and trying to dump Dell & HP by using the Xbox as The New Home Computer? Has Apple moved to Intel just as Microsoft moves away? Yeah, it's a long shot, but interesting to think about.
Yeah, I don't believe those June 2006 rumours at all. They're about as believable as PowerPage's rumor that FireWire is going away in the new iBooks. Unless Apple makes some sort of converter for all those DV cameras out there that come with Firewire connectors, there's no way Firewire can be abandoned on Macs. (iPods, obviously, are a different story.) And a subnotebook/superPDA/super-iPod is on my wishlist, too.
i.e., you didn't. Words. They're powerful tools.
Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).
Oh, that's an interesting take on events! Maybe Steve's seeing it as a win/win situation: He eventually got what he wanted (Intel chips) and IBM got what it wanted (the games console business) and Apple and IBM both got respect again in the meantime. Well, except for the 3 GHz fiasco...
It would have been cheaper and easier overall, but without OS X being a proven entity in 1999, were Adobe & MS too averse to risk to make the double jump back then? Didn't both Microsoft and Adobe balk at migrating to the then-unproven OS X? Didn't they push hard for Carbon so they'd have to change their apps as little as possible for OS X? Would Adobe & MS have rewritten their code for OS X and for X86 all at once? How hard would that have been without XCode in 1999?...
And I don't want a Photoshop clone, much as this poster said: http://discussions.apple.com/thread....58240&tstart=0
You mean, ACR, right?
I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations. DNG is barely a year old:http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...DNGQUOTES.html Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument. Are they useful...
New Posts  All Forums: