or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DESuserIGN

The move to the PowerPC was controversial? Only in hindsight. Did people expect them to stay with the 68xxx series?I'd say the biggest controversy (catastrophe) was the naive and suicidal agreement to license technology to Microsoft.
Exactly. Which is why people object to the ever expanding use of high fructose corn syrup in processed foods. It makes otherwise ordinary or healthy food into high glycemic index foods which encourages people to over eat and leads to insulin resistance and eventual diabetes. Ordinary sugar does the same. HFCS just does it worse.
iWork is very good, I would say miles better than MS Works. But I find, as cool as Numbers is, it's a poor substitute for serious work in Excell. Similarly, Pages is great in many ways, but missing many features from Word that some might find essential. iWork is such a deal though, I'd say buy it and use it. If you become a power user and run into a limitation down the road, perhaps by then iWork will have a newer version that will work for you. Or you can take all the...
No pivot tables! Really? I guess I'll continue to use use NeoOffice and donate money to them rather than get ripped off by Microsoft. They've had a pretty mac-like interface for quite a while now and they didn't have to be begged and cajoled!
The rumors don't "piss people off" (I see nobody's posts sounding "pissed off.") It's the repeating of the rumors as fact that causes a bit of irritation.
Well then, it must be true! (or they're just reporting that the NYT said . . . ) Ever heard of an echo chamber?
I've not seen a breakdown of relative profitability by product for Adobe (most companies don't release that kind of information.) But adobe makes 2/3 of all their revenue from their "Creative Solutions" group, which is basically all their CS software which is "targeted at the needs of creative professionals." And I do seem to remember them having referred to Creative Suite as their "most profitable product." I also seem to remember that they sell roughly equal numbers of...
LOL, perhaps they could just use the now freely available MacPaint source code from the original Mac?http://www.computerhistory.org/highlights/macpaint/
Yes, yes, very impressive. Patents on ideas they have had for software. But Final Cut Pro was produced in exactly the manner a CS substitute could be produced. Some inexpensive clever companies and technologies were purchased and put into service to produce a new and innovative offering built fresh from the ground up. And it was produced in less than a year. But on release, it was seen as a great and valuable product and the game changer it soon became. Adobe and Avid lost...
Well it is a complex project and it would not be "easy." But Apple would not have great difficulty. Look how quickly they moved with Final Cut Pro and iWork. My concern is that Apple tends to lose interest in software projects once they have developed them (I see FCP sort of languishing a bit over the last few years. And iWork has remained a bit subpar when it should be polished to a high gloss by now.)
New Posts  All Forums: