You can't compare something with an Apple product because most of the Apple users aren't able to be critical. It is like: "Ooh, my god is better than your god!"
What are you talking about? Photoshop has NOTHING to do with Mac Paint. Nothing whatsoever. Don't just say things like that.
Look up the history of Photoshop.
Of course it has. It would never have been developed but for the Mac and the Mac Tool Box. I was there at the time, working with Apple, Adobe, Aldus, Radius etc. no need to look anything up. Thomas Knoll's work was a brilliant but natural development on the Mac using the capability of the then gray scale Mac and later color Mac. Apple encouraged such software development having put Mac Paint and Mac Draw out there to show the way and built so much into the Mac's Tool box for developers to call.
My point, which you seemed to have missed, was Apple are now developing their own high end software products and they will not be converted to Windows unless it is a specific benifit to Apple such as Safari and iTunes.
Back then Apple helped and guided others and those they helped later switched to Windows versions and helped make the PC a success. Even Microsoft was another example. Only an OS developer (did I say developer ...? Did anyone say Digital Research or CP/M?) until asked to develop programs specified by Steve Jobs for the Mac... you know programs like Word ... Multi-Plan (later to become Excel) etc.
Of course it has. It would never have been developed but for the Mac and the Mac Tool Box. I was there at the time, working with Apple, Adobe, Aldus, Radius etc. no need to look anything up. Thomas Knoll's work was a brilliant but natural development on the Mac using the capability of the then gray scale Mac and later color Mac. Apple encouraged such software development having put Mac Paint and Mac Draw out there to show the way and built so much into the Mac's Tool box for developers to call.
My point, which you seemed to have missed, was Apple are now developing their own high end software products and they will not be converted to Windows unless it is a specific benifit to Apple such as Safari and iTunes.
Back then Apple helped and guided others and those they helped later switched to Windows versions and helped make the PC a success. Even Microsoft was another example. Only an OS developer (did I say developer ...? Did anyone say Digital Research or CP/M?) until asked to develop programs specified by Steve Jobs for the Mac... you know programs like Word ... Multi-Plan (later to become Excel) etc.
Photoshop started out as a scientific application for conversions. Of course it was developed for the Mac. But it has nothing to do with MacPaint. You're trying to make it sound as though Knoll looked at MacPaint and thought, Wow! I can do a graphics file conversion program from that He didn't. I'm pretty familiar with it myself. I've beta tested it from the beginning, and my lab was a test shop for them.
The Toolbos was not MacPaint. MacPaint used the toolbox as every other program did. But that's different.
We all know what Apple is doing know. I use most of their high end programs, and have from the beginning.
It was your statement about MacPaint that is off base. The rest of what you have now said is fine.
Microsoft's Surface looks like they've left a dedicated development team alone to do their stuff, with no Microsoft involvement other than money. It looks interesting. And if this marks the base for Windows 7's touch interface we can expect some solid stuff. But as usual, Microsoft will pump too much shit into the stuff.
"You've left a cotton sweater on the surface. It appears to be dirty. Washing service is alerted and scheduled to pick up your laundry in 29 minutes and 59 seconds."
So ok.. windows 7 will be ready 2012 or something like that? And Apple's minimalistic Leopard touch interface will be ready 2008? Yeah we'll see...
Microsoft's Surface looks like they've left a dedicated development team alone to do their stuff, with no Microsoft involvement other than money. It looks interesting. And if this marks the base for Windows 7's touch interface we can expect some solid stuff. But as usual, Microsoft will pump too much shit into the stuff.
"You've left a cotton sweater on the surface. It appears to be dirty. Washing service is alerted and scheduled to pick up your laundry in 29 minutes and 59 seconds."
So ok.. windows 7 will be ready 2012 or something like that? And Apple's minimalistic Leopard touch interface will be ready 2008? Yeah we'll see...
MS has said that they would have shorter schedules from now on. No more big projects like Longhorn. They expect no more than two years, maybe less. We'll see.
Photoshop started out as a scientific application for conversions. Of course it was developed for the Mac. But it has nothing to do with MacPaint. You're trying to make it sound as though Knoll looked at MacPaint and thought, Wow! I can do a graphics file conversion program from that He didn't. I'm pretty familiar with it myself. I've beta tested it from the beginning, and my lab was a test shop for them.
The Toolbos was not MacPaint. MacPaint used the toolbox as every other program did. But that's different.
We all know what Apple is doing know. I use most of their high end programs, and have from the beginning.
It was your statement about MacPaint that is off base. The rest of what you have now said is fine.
Well I am glad you agree for the most part. I think your inside knowledge that PS started as his PhD work has blinded you to the fact that it would have developed into a totally different application had he not seen Mac Paint or the Mac or rather his brother had not. I was probably not explicit enough when referring to Mac Paint and Mac Draw. To me they were the outward manifestations of the inner Mac's Tool box, much like Core Animation and Core Audio etc. are central to the current Mac's application development. So when I say Mac Paint I am referring to the Mac's pixel based capability in 1984 and Mac Draw to its vector based abilities. These were not simple little applications, they were the start of the GUI Applications for the masses just as the Finder was the start of the GIU for the masses using a mouse. All due respect to Xerox of course. Ah, remember LaserPaint, MacDraft, ColorIt! Digital Dark Room ... those were fun days.
Both being users of Apple's Pro line we can both be glad this time Steve did this in house and is keeping it there. If Apple had seeded out the core of OS X and specified the requirements for all the Pro Apps he would have created another Adobe or MacroMedia down the road who would have turned around and sold elsewhere in a heart beat. I guess this was my main point ... and perhaps it took the 'second coming' of Steve to be this 'in house oriented' having seen his original OS stolen and all his concepts likewise.
Well I am glad you agree for the most part. I think your inside knowledge that PS started as his PhD work has blinded you to the fact that it would have developed into a totally different application had he not seen Mac Paint or the Mac or rather his brother had not. I was probably not explicit enough when referring to Mac Paint and Mac Draw. To me they were the outward manifestations of the inner Mac's Tool box, much like Core Animation and Core Audio etc. are central to the current Mac's application development. So when I say Mac Paint I am referring to the Mac's pixel based capability in 1984 and Mac Draw to its vector based abilities. These were not simple little applications, they were the start of the GUI Applications for the masses just as the Finder was the start of the GIU for the masses using a mouse. All due respect to Xerox of course. Ah, remember LaserPaint, MacDraft, ColorIt! Digital Dark Room ... those were fun days.
Both being users of Apple's Pro line we can both be glad this time Steve did this in house and is keeping it there. If Apple had seeded out the core of OS X and specified the requirements for all the Pro Apps he would have created another Adobe or MacroMedia down the road who would have turned around and sold elsewhere in a heart beat. I guess this was my main point ... and perhaps it took the 'second coming' of Steve to be this 'in house oriented' having seen his original OS stolen and all his concepts likewise.
He certainly did see the value of Apple's Toolbox and vector capabilities. I was told that back then by Photoshop's development team members who came to my shop. And seeing programs that could be made with them certainly did help. But my objection was to the statement:
Quote:
One good thing is Apple has stopped helping the likes of Adobe who just took Mac Paint and ran with it...
Because it's not true at all.
What too many people like to forget about those days is that if it weren't for the work done by Adobe, Aldus, Hp, and a few others, such as a small company called Microsoft, Apple wouldn't be here today. They would just be another of the early failed computer companies who had their own OS's.
And Apple has treated those companies badly over the years, or did so much to shoot itself in the foot, that they had to move to the PC market to protect themselves.
What too many people like to forget about those days is that if it weren't for the work done by Adobe, Aldus, Hp, and a few others, such as a small company called Microsoft, Apple wouldn't be here today. They would just be another of the early failed computer companies who had their own OS's.
And Apple has treated those companies badly over the years, or did so much to shoot itself in the foot, that they had to move to the PC market to protect themselves.
Or perhaps they'd have 95% market share! However, I will let others reply to this new direction of your thought. lol.
Yes those early days were fun. Adobe and Aldus were amazing companies. I met with Chuck Geschke and Paul Brainard, and I still have Pagemaker 0.9. I also personally demonstrated Illustrator beta to the press with Chuck standing there! I remember how many of the press simply failed to grasp 'drawing with a brick' was the future lol.
All I can say is this new Apple is pretty much doing it all alone. So let us wait and see if the earlier concept of letting other companies develop for a totally new computing paradigm or the latter one of keeping it in house works best for Apple. This time, at least, I think SJ is correct to keep it tight.
Photoshop started out as a scientific application. I've beta tested it from the beginning, and my lab was a test shop for them.
As I am always fascinated by that period of history as I was so involved myself, I was curious about your testing. You say scientific application, what did it do prior to the code I was familiar with? I only ever knew it as an image manipulator. I assume, from your comments, you were testing pre Knoll's Display and that would be what 1986 - 87? Or are you talking about the later product, by that time named Photoshop and around the time Barneyscan were distributing? I was playing with it around that time and my company was working with Leaf Systems on the Leaf Scanner and it sure was a crazy time in print graphics. Remember Letraset so nearly succeeded too?
As I am always fascinated by that period of history as I was so involved myself, I was curious about your testing. You say scientific application, what did it do prior to the code I was familiar with? I only ever knew it as an image manipulator. I assume, from your comments, you were testing pre Knoll's Display and that would be what 1986 - 87? Or are you talking about the later product, by that time named Photoshop and around the time Barneyscan were distributing? I was playing with it around that time and my company was working with Leaf Systems on the Leaf Scanner and it sure was a crazy time in print graphics. Remember Letraset so nearly succeeded too?
Actually, before all that, I bought a Crossfield. I still have the manuals and literature!
I think that Knoll et al got much of the idea for the photo editing from that.
The early Knoll program was pretty much just a graphics file converter. It actually did some of the manipulations that Graphics Converter does. too complex for most people to use for commercial work. I have it around somewhere. Of course, I can't run it without going up to the attic and unpacking an old machine. There's a lot of stuff I keep for historical reasons.
I played with the Barneyscan when Stephen helped to get the Barneyscan working properly, by giving them the Beseler film mount, which he modified to work with the scanner.
Those were really heady days, because the arguments for going digital were still so shaky. I suppose you remember the big arguments about going with scanned seps rather than film?
Actually, before all that, I bought a Crossfield. I still have the manuals and literature!
I think that Knoll et al got much of the idea for the photo editing from that.
The early Knoll program was pretty much just a graphics file converter. It actually did some of the manipulations that Graphics Converter does. too complex for most people to use for commercial work. I have it around somewhere. Of course, I can't run it without going up to the attic and unpacking an old machine. There's a lot of stuff I keep for historical reasons.
I played with the Barneyscan when Stephen helped to get the Barneyscan working properly, by giving them the Beseler film mount, which he modified to work with the scanner.
Those were really heady days, because the arguments for going digital were still so shaky. I suppose you remember the big arguments about going with scanned seps rather than film?
Wow more memories (hey we must be boring the pants off everyone born post 1970 lol). My company was into gray component replacement and under color removal from CMY done from scans on mid level scanners such as Leaf (you know cheap stuff under $25,000) and competing with the big boys. Ironically I ended up dealing with Scitex, Kodak digital division and Type Setter companies such as LinoType and MonoType as we could screen to RIPS (and oh yes, the scanner guys out of Nashua ... mind gone blank ...). I nearly lived on I495 and R128
Do I remember the arguments? lol, I was spending day and night arguing about nothing else! I was even hauled in to meet with Kodak's board by the digital division to try to explain silver halide's days were numbered but they didn't believe me or the digital division.
Wow more memories (hey we must be boring the pants off everyone born post 1970 lol). My company was into gray component replacement and under color removal from CMY done from scans on mid level scanners such as Leaf (you know cheap stuff under $25,000) and competing with the big boys. Ironically I ended up dealing with Scitex, Kodak digital division and Type Setter companies such as LinoType and MonoType as we could screen to RIPS (and oh yes, the scanner guys out of Nashua ... mind gone blank ...). I nearly lived on I495 and R128
Do I remember the arguments? lol, I was spending day and night arguing about nothing else! I was even hauled in to meet with Kodak's board by the digital division to try to explain silver halide's days were numbered but they didn't believe me or the digital division.
Yeah, I had equipment from most of those guys over the years, as well as Howtek, etc.
We did a lot of business with kodak, because we were the only lab offering Kodachrome professional processing, with a clipping service, two hour regular service, and processor based color correction, with a machine we had designed, and had made for us by Houston Photo. A MONSTER! I have plenty of stories about that!!!
Yeah, I had equipment from most of those guys over the years, as well as Howtek, etc.
We did a lot of business with kodak, because we were the only lab offering Kodachrome professional processing, with a clipping service, two hour regular service, and processor based color correction, with a machine we had designed, and had made for us by Houston Photo. A MONSTER! I have plenty of stories about that!!!
BTW Did you know years later EFI sued just about every software company from that era involved with color in the digital domain? From what I remember they bought the patents from some University professor but I could be wrong (EDIT: I was wrong the scientists did work for EFI at one point but also MIT). I had sold out by then but I know one company that licensed my code had to cough up.
BTW Did you know years later EFI sued just about every software company from that era involved with color in the digital domain? From what I remember they bought the patents from some University professor but I could be wrong. I had sold out by then but I know one company that licensed my code had to cough up.
They were hoping to lock things up, but they failed. I don't remember any of the suits though. There are far more competitors today than there ever were back then.
Just how many times does MS think it can play this same scam?
1. Good product A comes out (oh, say Dr DOS)
2. MS makes huge announcement that they have a version 'about to be released' that will blow everyone away.
3. Everyone puts off buying product A (encouraged by MS sponsored trade rags) because we all know that MS wouldn't BS people.
4. Product A withers away because of 3.
5. MS comes out far later then they promised with their rip-off of Product A, except that their product sucks. (But competition matters not, because Company A has been driven out of business.
The difference is that Apple isn't Company A (at least this time), and MS has never succeeded in a market where they have to compete.
But give them credit for trying the same FUD play yet again.
(BTW, aren't they embarrassed yet calling 'Surface' a real interface? Its essentially a 100 pound box of projectors pointing up. About as sophisticated as the kids games you see in malls with projectors overhead that project on the floor as kids stomp around on the bubbles to make them move.
Pathetic.
Umm what!? Xbox 360, have you heard of it, I'd say it's successful and I don't even own one... yet.
The table is just ONE version of surface, it can and will come in other forms. It's a table not cause of design limitations but because it's supposed to be a table. they could make a version that you hang on the wall if you want. It's just a screen with cameras behind it, it's not that hard to miniaturize and future version should use RFID. Also the surface table runs off Vista so MS already has multi-touch capability in it's desktop OS unlike OS X. MS will not be waiting until Windows 7 to enable multi-touch as mentioned earlier the Dell tablet will be multitouch shortly it just requires a firmware update. Plus MS has had touch capability for it's tablet line for years they've been doing this longer than anyone else I can think of. The addition of multi-touch is evolutionary not revolutionary. OOO you can use TWO fingers now instead of ONE, WOW!!
I never knew a technology had to be complex in order to be useful. Have you ever heard of the phrase k.i.s.s. keep it simple stupid?
Okay, Zealot. You just go on living in your "Charmeuse Dress" box. If you care to test your blind faith, read on. Otherwise, don't even bother. Usually it's no use arging with close-minded ones like you.
Comments
You can't compare something with an Apple product because most of the Apple users aren't able to be critical. It is like: "Ooh, my god is better than your god!"
Not critical !!
What are you talking about? Photoshop has NOTHING to do with Mac Paint. Nothing whatsoever. Don't just say things like that.
Look up the history of Photoshop.
Of course it has. It would never have been developed but for the Mac and the Mac Tool Box. I was there at the time, working with Apple, Adobe, Aldus, Radius etc. no need to look anything up. Thomas Knoll's work was a brilliant but natural development on the Mac using the capability of the then gray scale Mac and later color Mac. Apple encouraged such software development having put Mac Paint and Mac Draw out there to show the way and built so much into the Mac's Tool box for developers to call.
My point, which you seemed to have missed, was Apple are now developing their own high end software products and they will not be converted to Windows unless it is a specific benifit to Apple such as Safari and iTunes.
Back then Apple helped and guided others and those they helped later switched to Windows versions and helped make the PC a success. Even Microsoft was another example. Only an OS developer (did I say developer ...? Did anyone say Digital Research or CP/M?) until asked to develop programs specified by Steve Jobs for the Mac... you know programs like Word ... Multi-Plan (later to become Excel) etc.
Of course it has. It would never have been developed but for the Mac and the Mac Tool Box. I was there at the time, working with Apple, Adobe, Aldus, Radius etc. no need to look anything up. Thomas Knoll's work was a brilliant but natural development on the Mac using the capability of the then gray scale Mac and later color Mac. Apple encouraged such software development having put Mac Paint and Mac Draw out there to show the way and built so much into the Mac's Tool box for developers to call.
My point, which you seemed to have missed, was Apple are now developing their own high end software products and they will not be converted to Windows unless it is a specific benifit to Apple such as Safari and iTunes.
Back then Apple helped and guided others and those they helped later switched to Windows versions and helped make the PC a success. Even Microsoft was another example. Only an OS developer (did I say developer ...? Did anyone say Digital Research or CP/M?) until asked to develop programs specified by Steve Jobs for the Mac... you know programs like Word ... Multi-Plan (later to become Excel) etc.
Photoshop started out as a scientific application for conversions. Of course it was developed for the Mac. But it has nothing to do with MacPaint. You're trying to make it sound as though Knoll looked at MacPaint and thought, Wow! I can do a graphics file conversion program from that He didn't. I'm pretty familiar with it myself. I've beta tested it from the beginning, and my lab was a test shop for them.
The Toolbos was not MacPaint. MacPaint used the toolbox as every other program did. But that's different.
We all know what Apple is doing know. I use most of their high end programs, and have from the beginning.
It was your statement about MacPaint that is off base. The rest of what you have now said is fine.
"You've left a cotton sweater on the surface. It appears to be dirty. Washing service is alerted and scheduled to pick up your laundry in 29 minutes and 59 seconds."
So ok.. windows 7 will be ready 2012 or something like that? And Apple's minimalistic Leopard touch interface will be ready 2008? Yeah we'll see...
Microsoft's Surface looks like they've left a dedicated development team alone to do their stuff, with no Microsoft involvement other than money. It looks interesting. And if this marks the base for Windows 7's touch interface we can expect some solid stuff. But as usual, Microsoft will pump too much shit into the stuff.
"You've left a cotton sweater on the surface. It appears to be dirty. Washing service is alerted and scheduled to pick up your laundry in 29 minutes and 59 seconds."
So ok.. windows 7 will be ready 2012 or something like that? And Apple's minimalistic Leopard touch interface will be ready 2008? Yeah we'll see...
MS has said that they would have shorter schedules from now on. No more big projects like Longhorn. They expect no more than two years, maybe less. We'll see.
Photoshop started out as a scientific application for conversions. Of course it was developed for the Mac. But it has nothing to do with MacPaint. You're trying to make it sound as though Knoll looked at MacPaint and thought, Wow! I can do a graphics file conversion program from that He didn't. I'm pretty familiar with it myself. I've beta tested it from the beginning, and my lab was a test shop for them.
The Toolbos was not MacPaint. MacPaint used the toolbox as every other program did. But that's different.
We all know what Apple is doing know. I use most of their high end programs, and have from the beginning.
It was your statement about MacPaint that is off base. The rest of what you have now said is fine.
Well I am glad you agree for the most part.
Both being users of Apple's Pro line we can both be glad this time Steve did this in house and is keeping it there. If Apple had seeded out the core of OS X and specified the requirements for all the Pro Apps he would have created another Adobe or MacroMedia down the road who would have turned around and sold elsewhere in a heart beat. I guess this was my main point ... and perhaps it took the 'second coming' of Steve to be this 'in house oriented' having seen his original OS stolen and all his concepts likewise.
Well I am glad you agree for the most part.
Both being users of Apple's Pro line we can both be glad this time Steve did this in house and is keeping it there. If Apple had seeded out the core of OS X and specified the requirements for all the Pro Apps he would have created another Adobe or MacroMedia down the road who would have turned around and sold elsewhere in a heart beat. I guess this was my main point ... and perhaps it took the 'second coming' of Steve to be this 'in house oriented' having seen his original OS stolen and all his concepts likewise.
He certainly did see the value of Apple's Toolbox and vector capabilities. I was told that back then by Photoshop's development team members who came to my shop. And seeing programs that could be made with them certainly did help. But my objection was to the statement:
One good thing is Apple has stopped helping the likes of Adobe who just took Mac Paint and ran with it...
Because it's not true at all.
What too many people like to forget about those days is that if it weren't for the work done by Adobe, Aldus, Hp, and a few others, such as a small company called Microsoft, Apple wouldn't be here today. They would just be another of the early failed computer companies who had their own OS's.
And Apple has treated those companies badly over the years, or did so much to shoot itself in the foot, that they had to move to the PC market to protect themselves.
What too many people like to forget about those days is that if it weren't for the work done by Adobe, Aldus, Hp, and a few others, such as a small company called Microsoft, Apple wouldn't be here today. They would just be another of the early failed computer companies who had their own OS's.
And Apple has treated those companies badly over the years, or did so much to shoot itself in the foot, that they had to move to the PC market to protect themselves.
Or perhaps they'd have 95% market share! However, I will let others reply to this new direction of your thought. lol.
Yes those early days were fun. Adobe and Aldus were amazing companies. I met with Chuck Geschke and Paul Brainard, and I still have Pagemaker 0.9. I also personally demonstrated Illustrator beta to the press with Chuck standing there! I remember how many of the press simply failed to grasp 'drawing with a brick' was the future lol.
All I can say is this new Apple is pretty much doing it all alone. So let us wait and see if the earlier concept of letting other companies develop for a totally new computing paradigm or the latter one of keeping it in house works best for Apple. This time, at least, I think SJ is correct to keep it tight.
Photoshop started out as a scientific application. I've beta tested it from the beginning, and my lab was a test shop for them.
As I am always fascinated by that period of history as I was so involved myself, I was curious about your testing. You say scientific application, what did it do prior to the code I was familiar with? I only ever knew it as an image manipulator. I assume, from your comments, you were testing pre Knoll's Display and that would be what 1986 - 87? Or are you talking about the later product, by that time named Photoshop and around the time Barneyscan were distributing? I was playing with it around that time and my company was working with Leaf Systems on the Leaf Scanner and it sure was a crazy time in print graphics. Remember Letraset so nearly succeeded too?
As I am always fascinated by that period of history as I was so involved myself, I was curious about your testing. You say scientific application, what did it do prior to the code I was familiar with? I only ever knew it as an image manipulator. I assume, from your comments, you were testing pre Knoll's Display and that would be what 1986 - 87? Or are you talking about the later product, by that time named Photoshop and around the time Barneyscan were distributing? I was playing with it around that time and my company was working with Leaf Systems on the Leaf Scanner and it sure was a crazy time in print graphics. Remember Letraset so nearly succeeded too?
Actually, before all that, I bought a Crossfield. I still have the manuals and literature!
I think that Knoll et al got much of the idea for the photo editing from that.
The early Knoll program was pretty much just a graphics file converter. It actually did some of the manipulations that Graphics Converter does. too complex for most people to use for commercial work. I have it around somewhere. Of course, I can't run it without going up to the attic and unpacking an old machine. There's a lot of stuff I keep for historical reasons.
I played with the Barneyscan when Stephen helped to get the Barneyscan working properly, by giving them the Beseler film mount, which he modified to work with the scanner.
Those were really heady days, because the arguments for going digital were still so shaky. I suppose you remember the big arguments about going with scanned seps rather than film?
Actually, before all that, I bought a Crossfield. I still have the manuals and literature!
I think that Knoll et al got much of the idea for the photo editing from that.
The early Knoll program was pretty much just a graphics file converter. It actually did some of the manipulations that Graphics Converter does. too complex for most people to use for commercial work. I have it around somewhere. Of course, I can't run it without going up to the attic and unpacking an old machine. There's a lot of stuff I keep for historical reasons.
I played with the Barneyscan when Stephen helped to get the Barneyscan working properly, by giving them the Beseler film mount, which he modified to work with the scanner.
Those were really heady days, because the arguments for going digital were still so shaky. I suppose you remember the big arguments about going with scanned seps rather than film?
Wow more memories (hey we must be boring the pants off everyone born post 1970 lol). My company was into gray component replacement and under color removal from CMY done from scans on mid level scanners such as Leaf (you know cheap stuff under $25,000) and competing with the big boys. Ironically I ended up dealing with Scitex, Kodak digital division and Type Setter companies such as LinoType and MonoType as we could screen to RIPS (and oh yes, the scanner guys out of Nashua ... mind gone blank ...). I nearly lived on I495 and R128
Do I remember the arguments? lol, I was spending day and night arguing about nothing else! I was even hauled in to meet with Kodak's board by the digital division to try to explain silver halide's days were numbered but they didn't believe me or the digital division.
Wow more memories (hey we must be boring the pants off everyone born post 1970 lol). My company was into gray component replacement and under color removal from CMY done from scans on mid level scanners such as Leaf (you know cheap stuff under $25,000) and competing with the big boys. Ironically I ended up dealing with Scitex, Kodak digital division and Type Setter companies such as LinoType and MonoType as we could screen to RIPS (and oh yes, the scanner guys out of Nashua ... mind gone blank ...). I nearly lived on I495 and R128
Do I remember the arguments? lol, I was spending day and night arguing about nothing else! I was even hauled in to meet with Kodak's board by the digital division to try to explain silver halide's days were numbered but they didn't believe me or the digital division.
Yeah, I had equipment from most of those guys over the years, as well as Howtek, etc.
We did a lot of business with kodak, because we were the only lab offering Kodachrome professional processing, with a clipping service, two hour regular service, and processor based color correction, with a machine we had designed, and had made for us by Houston Photo. A MONSTER! I have plenty of stories about that!!!
Yeah, I had equipment from most of those guys over the years, as well as Howtek, etc.
We did a lot of business with kodak, because we were the only lab offering Kodachrome professional processing, with a clipping service, two hour regular service, and processor based color correction, with a machine we had designed, and had made for us by Houston Photo. A MONSTER! I have plenty of stories about that!!!
BTW Did you know years later EFI sued just about every software company from that era involved with color in the digital domain? From what I remember they bought the patents from some University professor but I could be wrong (EDIT: I was wrong the scientists did work for EFI at one point but also MIT). I had sold out by then but I know one company that licensed my code had to cough up.
I found an article : http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N67/67lawsuit.67n.html
BTW Did you know years later EFI sued just about every software company from that era involved with color in the digital domain? From what I remember they bought the patents from some University professor but I could be wrong. I had sold out by then but I know one company that licensed my code had to cough up.
They were hoping to lock things up, but they failed. I don't remember any of the suits though. There are far more competitors today than there ever were back then.
Thank you digitalclips and melgross. You two have made me feel very young today.
ROFL
I suspect you are no spring chicken judging by your wise inputs on this forum ... (not that i am suggesting youngsters are not wise ...)
Just how many times does MS think it can play this same scam?
1. Good product A comes out (oh, say Dr DOS)
2. MS makes huge announcement that they have a version 'about to be released' that will blow everyone away.
3. Everyone puts off buying product A (encouraged by MS sponsored trade rags) because we all know that MS wouldn't BS people.
4. Product A withers away because of 3.
5. MS comes out far later then they promised with their rip-off of Product A, except that their product sucks. (But competition matters not, because Company A has been driven out of business.
The difference is that Apple isn't Company A (at least this time), and MS has never succeeded in a market where they have to compete.
But give them credit for trying the same FUD play yet again.
(BTW, aren't they embarrassed yet calling 'Surface' a real interface? Its essentially a 100 pound box of projectors pointing up. About as sophisticated as the kids games you see in malls with projectors overhead that project on the floor as kids stomp around on the bubbles to make them move.
Pathetic.
Umm what!? Xbox 360, have you heard of it, I'd say it's successful and I don't even own one... yet.
The table is just ONE version of surface, it can and will come in other forms. It's a table not cause of design limitations but because it's supposed to be a table. they could make a version that you hang on the wall if you want. It's just a screen with cameras behind it, it's not that hard to miniaturize and future version should use RFID. Also the surface table runs off Vista so MS already has multi-touch capability in it's desktop OS unlike OS X. MS will not be waiting until Windows 7 to enable multi-touch as mentioned earlier the Dell tablet will be multitouch shortly it just requires a firmware update. Plus MS has had touch capability for it's tablet line for years they've been doing this longer than anyone else I can think of. The addition of multi-touch is evolutionary not revolutionary. OOO you can use TWO fingers now instead of ONE, WOW!!
I never knew a technology had to be complex in order to be useful. Have you ever heard of the phrase k.i.s.s. keep it simple stupid?
Okay, Zealot. You just go on living in your "Charmeuse Dress" box. If you care to test your blind faith, read on. Otherwise, don't even bother. Usually it's no use arging with close-minded ones like you.