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

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

Moreno writes:

> I rarely reboot either, but I turn my scanner
> off when I'm not using it.

As long as it's on when you boot, you can thereafter turn it off or on whenever
you want.  That's what I do.

> If I want to unplug the scanner and bring it over
> to another PC, I can do that too, all without
> shutting down or rebooting the systems.

You can do that with SCSI as well, as long as the device ie present at boot
time.

> It's still the biggest problem with SCSI.

All of my SCSI devices have a switch to terminate the chain if nothing else
follows.

> Cable length is an issue for me. I need a
> 3 metre cable for my current setup, which I
> can't do with SCSI. I'm sure I'm not the only
> one who appreciates that flexibility.

You can have Firewire if you want it; but I don't see why it has to be Fireware
or SCSI, but not both.

> Yes they will. It has been officially announced
> by Microsoft.

Where?  Someone might want to clue in companies like HP and Compaq, which are
still selling brand-new servers with Windows NT.

> NT will disappear as older PC's are replaced.

Older PCs may not be replaced for many years to come.  As I've said, some
systems still run MS-DOS.

> ... every two or three years seems to be the
> average for corporate desktop users.

Corporate desktops are not production systems.

> I haven't heard of any new NT installations
> for some time now.

You can buy brand-new systems with Windows NT, if you want them.

> One of the problems with the Pentium Pro was
> that it was really expensive to manufacture ...

They could just trim their 50% margin to cover the difference.

> And unless a user was running NT, the CPU didn't
> perform as well as the less expensive Pentiums
> of equivalent clock speeds.

And if a user is running NT, the later microprocessors don't perform as well as
the PPro.

> The Pentium Pro cost two to three times an
> equivalent Pentium CPU, but certainly didn't
> deliver an equivalent increase in performance.

It was greased lightning on Windows NT.

> Retooling not only enables a manufacture to
> introduce newer, faster processors based on
> new technologies, they can also be built for
> a lower cost.

Then why do the newer ones always cost three times as much as their
predecessors?  Could it be those 50% margins again?

> A thousand for what the much slower Pentium
> Pros used to cost.

They don't cost that much now.

> Yes, but an OS can easily be duplicated for pennies ...

A microprocessor can be fabricated for a few dollars, once you have the factory
in place.  Likewise, an OS is easily to duplicate, but may cost close to a
billion dollars to develop.

> We were discussing current, not obsolete technology.

Current technology is the same, if you want hardware that will last.

> I do it fairly often.

All you've mentioned thus far is desktops.  Those aren't production systems.
Production systems usually take a few weeks to set up.

> Not in the context of this discussion.

Yes, in the context of this discussion.  I run such a system myself.

> I suspect I know who my customers are much better
> than you do.

I recognize the customers you describe.  They are not running production
systems.

> Let's keep focused on the topics at hand.

I am.  You're apparently not familiar with mission-critical production systems;
I am.  That's why you are confusing them with desktop machines.

> We are discussing systems as they relate to
> photography and scanning.

When you depend on photography and scanning to pay the rent and buy your meals,
the computer you use for the purpose is a mission-critical, production system,
and the precautions that apply to operating such systems come into play.

> How many photographers or press-press houses do
> you know that are running software from 1968
> and are still in business?

I haven't polled them.  Most of what exists today was not available in 1968, at
least in this domain.

I do know, however, a great many photographers who are still using cameras and
lenses from 1968, or even long before that--unless they use Canon equipment, of
course.

> I have to disagree again. Most professional computer
> users that I deal with are likely to be running
> current technology and are the most frequent
> upgraders.

The ones you deal with are not using systems in a production environment.
Nobody who depends on a computer for survival can afford to idle it for weeks at
a time, any more than he can afford to run his business without electricity.