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

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

Pat writes:

> Well, the fact is, washing machines are not exactly
> a new technology, while computers are still in the
> growth phase of their product life cycle.

I've been hearing that for twenty years.  It was true in 1980, but it's not true
now.  For some years now, computers have had more than enough horsepower for
just about anything anyone might care to have them do.  This is one reason why
sales are down:  some people are starting to realize that their existing
computers are just fine, and others are discovering that buying last year's
model is far cheaper than buying this year's model, and it is still more than
they'll ever need.

> So rebuilding my house isn't necessary. But frankly,
> compared to when my washer was built, quite a few
> advances *have* been made in washing machine
> technology, and if I want them, I have to throw
> the old one out in order to get the new features.

But you don't have to rebuild the house, so that's not a problem for you.

> It isn't obvious to me that the dropping of SCSI
> was purely a marketing decision.

It certainly wasn't a technical decision.  The insides of the scanner are pretty
much identical, and Firewire and SCSI are just different enough to ruin
compatibility, but they are not dramatically different.

> It is a high end product aimed at professional
> photographers and small service bureaus.

These are precisely the users with large investments in hardware and software
that they cannot afford to destablize just to install one new component.  If you
want the professional market, you need to address backward compatibility; only
consumers are willing to buy everything new over and over, since they don't have
to make money with their computers or depend on them, anyway.

Working with computers for all these years, I know this; apparently Nikon does
not, although it seems to have no trouble understanding the principle when it
comes to building cameras and lenses.  Two different divisions, probably.

Of course, this principle applies to all sorts of domains, not just computers.
Nobody ditches an entire television studio filled with equipment just to
accommodate one new camcorder, either.

> Regardless, if the bulkl of the potential customers
> prefer a more convenient interface, why build a
> product with multiple interfaces?

I don't think the bulk of customers were polled, but in any case, building for
multiple or alternative interfaces is not that difficult.

> Firewire is hot pluggable and faster.

The speed of the interface has never been a limitation with any scanner I've
used.

> Although I use SCSI on my computer, I can't think
> of an advantage it has in this application, offhand.

The advantage is that you already have it.

> But by only providing it with a single interface,
> they reduce the cost of the product, as well as the
> complexity of the software to run it, and in turn
> reduce support costs.

Support costs are zero for customers who don't buy it.

> I run several hundred production systems. I manage
> PC platforms for a large asset management company.
> If the computers I was responsible for didn't
> function with all user specific settings and
> applications after a PC upgrade, I wouldn't have
> a job.

Desktop PCs are nothing like production systems.  The mere fact that a desktop
PC is used in a business environment doesn't make it a production computer
system.  A production computer system is the one that runs your payroll and your
online inventory system.  How often do you rebuild those?

> Yes, your washing machine accepts the same fittings as
> old ones. So does your computer.

I know of scanners that don't accommodate SCSI.

> But your washer won't let you add new features
> without replacing it.

Neither will my scanner.

> Your computer does.

Computer = house, scanner = washing machine.

> And although you knew this when you bought
> your computer, you're behaving as if it is
> wrong.

It is.  My old Nikon FG will let me mount the latest AF-S lenses.

> But don't bother being indignant about it. It
> is tiresome.

I used to feel that way, long ago--before I actually had to do productive work
with PCs.  As long as you can afford to play around with them, letting them
remain inoperative for weeks or months while you reconfigure and rebuild and
readjust, you don't realize what the problem is.

I used to rebuild my PC at work all the time (one of the so-called "production
systems" that you say you maintain).  It didn't matter if it didn't work for a
couple of days, since I used it only for e-mail and one in-house application.
And it was easy to rebuild, anyway, since I only had two applications that
needed to work on the machine, and no weird hardware.  But I've never done that
at home; the home machine is a true _production_ system.

> Less often than once every 6 years?

Yes.  The more money you drop on your investment, the longer it has to last
without change--a fundamental principle of business.  No business can afford to
repeat an investment before its predecessor has been amortized.

> I think you're projecting your preference for stasis
> onto a larger part of the market than reality will
> bear out.

No, I'm showing how the PC industry has always ignored some of the soundest
principles of running a business.  It has gotten away with it because many
businesses use PCs like they use staplers or typewriters.  But with increasing
numbers of businesses depending on PC-based systems for production, this is no
longer working.  I know ... I've dealt with such businesses, and if their
production systems go down, they are literally out of business.  Some of them
still run systems under MS-DOS.  And you might be surprised by the names of a
few of these companies.

> But why not poll the members of this list as to
> how often a computer used for one's imaging business
> is upgraded? I'd be surprised to learn that <10% are
> in the same boat as you being technically able to use a
> Firewire scanner (that is, an OS and hardware that
> can't accomodate it)

So would I.  I suspect that most are in similar circumstances to my own, if
they've been in business for a while.

> No, I think it is more realistic to believe that
> Nikon estimated a vast majority of their target
> audience could run Firewire.

No, I think that Nikon didn't estimate anything at all.  I recognize that sort
of reasoning when I see it.  If they had thought things through, they might have
considered the possible upgrade path.  They should have asked someone from their
camera division to look things over.

> Heck, they even throw in the interface card,
> just to be sure!

But they don't provide the necessary software.

> I think it is more likely they estimated more customers
> would forego buying their product at the higher price
> an additional interface would add to the price, than
> be offset by additional sales of people who could only
> use it with a Firewire interface.

Consider this:  How many brand-new, Windows 2000 systems do _not_ support SCSI?

> Other than the fact that SCSI devices on computers
> are notorious for interfering with each other, and
> because the spec for SCSI interface cables isn't as
> well defined ...

I've never had a single problem.  All of my SCSI devices have been plug and
play, even under Windows NT.