or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by orange whip

agreed- perhaps the debate would be less contentious if it were centred around the question of whether or not the average user, who principally consumes media only requires a device like an iPad. The iPad does what 95%(number picked for dramatic affect ) of 'computer' users actually do. Content creators on the other hand obviously need appropriate tools - being the 'PC' (for the moment that is until Apple redefine that space as well)
Apart from Russia all the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India.....) countries are in the red bits. I'd be chasing the those developing countries pretty hard.
It was my pleasure...
if you are a 'Pro' user buying this 'Pro' machine for production use then over the 3+ years productive use.... the initial cost is [largely] irrelevant. if you are buying one of these machines then you are doing serious work for a particular skill that you have considerable experience in for which people are willing to pay commensurate sums of money for the services you and your Mac Pro can deliver. if you are not a 'Pro' user and you want one ... well that's entirely up...
I think this is great news for every one except Microsoft. It's great for consumers as it 'should' spur real competition. HP will produce their own 'iPad' and with luck it will be very good. Apple's iPad and eco system will be better. But the important thing is that it pushes real innovation and competitiveness. It also further dilutes the perception people have that Microsoft is the only platform option. It's game over for Microsoft in the consumer market - they have been...
thanks for the suggestion HappyPappy... Pixelmator is great value. For $59 I get something that is intuitive, nice to work with, has 95% of what I need. It is a little unstable but for that price I will live with that. Given that Pixelmator has only been around for 3 years and it is only up to version 1.5 it has a promising future.
not hatered... it is a piece of shite. The problem is Adobe has no real competitors and whilst a program like photoshop may be the best in it's class, it works like software from the 1990's. Adobe are lazy because there is no one pushing them
They are always presented with a line-out. The presentation is mission critical... so risk minimisation is key.
following that line of argument why didn't ADC catch on? was it a licensing issue or just a mine is better than yours attitude in the market? I suppose it must take a lot of effort for any technology to gain enough traction that it can be regarded as a standard.
better still why not post only, say, once every ten times rather than 'squeaking' at every opportunity in a typically inane and inflammatory manner. perhaps reading up may make this happen... good idea Melgross (not having a go at you here by the way....)
New Posts  All Forums: