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

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Arthur writes:

> ... I have to say that your demands aren't
> completely reasonable, and you seem to really
> be fighting with yourself in your refusal
> to make certain changes which ultimately would
> save money.

Apply those same words to photographic equipment, and see if they still sound
sensible.

The public has been very well brainwashed with respect to computer equipment.
Not only do people not find it odd that they are expected to junk their
computers every year or so and buy completely new hardware and software, but
they've actually been convinced that this is the way things are _supposed_ to
be.  And yet, if this same situation existed with anything else--even other
high-tech goods--it might incite people to riot.

Sorry, but there aren't any changes that would cause me to "save money."  The
cheapest way to use my computer is by not changing anything at all, and so
that's what I do.  I long ago learned--after decades of dealing with
computers--that the most stable and reliable computer system is a system that is
never changed, and especially never "upgraded."  This is true for desktop
systems, it's true for handheld systems, and it's true for multimillion-dollar
mainframe computer systems.

If I could just buy a fancier scanner and plug it into my system in place of the
existing one (which would be possible if the LS-4000 were SCSI and Windows NT
compliant, like its predecessors), I could justify the cost of the scanner.  But
when I have to upgrade all the hardware, and install a new operating system, and
rebuild and reinstall every application, and tweak and reconfigure for months in
the hope that I've installed all the patches, parameters, and changes that I had
in my old system that made it work so well for my needs, the cost of the scanner
pales, and the overall investment far exceeds anything that could possibly be
justifiable for me, no matter how much better the new scanner might be.

As I've said, it's like having to rewire your house and replace all the
appliances and lights just to get a new washing machine.  Nobody would ever find
that normal.  And yet that's exactly what happens almost any time you "upgrade"
your computer system.

How do you think the PC industry maintains just high growth?  People have to buy
new systems over and over.  And the money the industry is making is coming out
of your pocket, if you fall into this upgrade trap.

Fortunately, people are gradually showing signs of restlessness with this
system, which is why PC sales are way down.  Some people have finally discovered
(or rediscovered) that there is really no reason to buy a new computer every two
years, when the old computer still works just fine.

> If I bought a car which required a fuel that was
> no longer manufactured in my country, and the only
> way I could drive the beast was to import the
> fuel from someplace else at tremendous cost,
> hassle and maybe even risk, I'd cash in my chips
> on that vehicle and accept the inevitable, that
> the car had been a bad purchase within the realm
> of the marketplace.

Yes, but I've carefully avoided making that mistake, to the extent possible.

> If you very simply are saying that "I absolutely
> refuse to upgrade" then, indeed you are probably
> stuck with limitations as to your purchase options,
> but then, if that's the case, the weak link might
> not be the LS2000...

The weak link is in Nikon's marketing strategy.  As a result, I do not have a
LS-4000, and they do not have my $1700.

As I've said, if Nikon marketed camera equipment in the same way, regularly
making older equipment obsolete, Canon would have squished the company long ago.
Nobody pays Nikon prices and then tolerates obsolescence a few years later.  The
same is even more true for companies like Leica.