----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>
> Pat writes:
>
> > I guess I'm a little confused on the source
> > of the dilemma. You are frustrated at the rapid
> > obsolescence in computer equipment and software,
> > which is certainly your right.
>
> Yes. What is confusing about that? If you had to rebuild your home in
order to
> replace a washing machine, wouldn't you find that a bit extreme, too?
>
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. 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. I guess I should be frutrated that Maytag didn't build
the washer such that it could accept new features.
> > Things *do* change quickly. And as they
> > change, things previously not possible become
> > so only because they make something previously
> > possible no longer.
>
> Not true in this case. Nikon simply decided to drop SCSI and Windows NT
support
> for their newer scanners. This was a marketing decision, not a technical
> decision, and no technical advantage accrues from it.
>
It isn't obvious to me that the dropping of SCSI was purely a marketing
decision. It is a high end product aimed at professional photographers and
small service bureaus. Most Macintoshes have had the Firewire for several
years. SCSI is disappearing even in Macs, as I understand it. Regardless, if
the bulkl of the potential customers prefer a more convenient interface, why
build a product with multiple interfaces? Firewire is hot pluggable and
faster. Although I use SCSI on my computer, I can't think of an advantage it
has in this application, offhand. 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.
> > You seem like a very knowledgeable computer user,
> > not a novice. I do think your expectations of effort
> > in order to accommodate new technologies is
> > unrealistic.
>
> It is precisely because I have several decades of experience in this
domain that
> I know the _real_ cost of upgrading anything. Virtually all upgrades
today
> create a snowball effect that very often requires completely replacing a
machine
> and most of the software running upon it, particularly the operating
system.
> This problem has become so serious nowadays that it provides strong
incentive
> for never upgrading anything at all (and that is my current policy).
>
> > The Pentium Pro processor you use was introduced
> > in 1995, and was the first in the P6 architecture
> > (and a damn fine chip for running NT, but Intel
> > has introduced two follow ons to it's core in
> > the interim).
>
> Yes. Unfortunately, Intel went for cheap speed after the Pentium Pro, and
never
> pursued the PPro design lines further.
>
> > When it was introduced, Firewire didn't exist.
>
> Most of what exists today didn't exist a month ago. That doesn't mean
that
> everything more than a month old should become unsupported.
>
> > Heck, the CPU itself was selling for close
> > to $2000 when it first came out.
>
> They still are. The latest Intel CPUs enjoy huge margins. It always
puzzles me
> that people complain so loudly about paying Microsoft $30 for a copy of
Windows
> on a new machine when often over half the total price of the system goes
to
> Intel to pay for a processor with a 70% gross profit margin or better.
>
> > I don't like re-configuring my personal computer,
> > and I install software very rarely, but I accept
> > it as the necessity of getting new functionality.
>
> When you run a production system, you may change your mind.
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. Some of these are PCs that run for months
without reboot, operated by PC hostile users. Believe me when I tell you
that I too have experience in upgrading PCs. Monday, my project at work to
upgrade ALL computers in my company to Win2k and Office 2k begins. It ends 5
weeks later (2 week pilot, three week for everyone outside IS), once all
desktop, laptops and servers have had new environments installed, and all
applications reinstalled, along with user-state. It is not insurmountable,
and even someone as lazy as I can accomplish it in short order. Products
like OnTrack System Suite have application moving features built-in.
>
> > But if it was only the need for an ability to scan
> > with the scanner that You seem to really want, then
> > many low cost options have been suggested ...
>
> All of these options add thousands of dollars to the bill, so they are
hardly
> low-cost.
Well, I at least outlined a suggestion that cost less than $400 (except the
cost of the Nikon scanner, which you still haven't mentioned a compelling
reason it is the only one suitable to the task). And here's yet ANOTHER low
cost solution. Purchase one of the boot manager/drive partitioning products
out there, and dual-boot into WinME solely for scanning.
>
> However, the real cost is not in dollars and hardware, it's in downtime.
I
> cannot afford to lose the use of 90% of my applications for two months
while I
> try to configure a completely new OS and/or new hardware. If I could buy
new
> hardware and just copy all the stuff on the old machine to the new
machine,
> boot, and run, then no problem. But 99% of the cost of the upgrade is in
the
> downtime, not the cost of the hardware, and that cost is too high to make
an
> upgrade cost-effective if it cannot be easily plugged into an existing
> configuration.
>
> > ... your energy seems devoted to vitriol toward
> > Nikon ...
>
> Nikon is making poor decisions on this product. That's their fault, not
mine.
>
> > ... and discounting in principle any effort to
> > accommodate your outdated hardware and it's
> > constraints.
>
> Strange ... my car, my washing machine, my TV, my microwave ... all of
these are
> older than my "outdated" PC, and yet I have no trouble finding
accommodations
> for them. I don't need to use completely new fuel for my car every two
years.
> My washing machine still accepts the same fittings and electrical power
that its
> predecessors did. My TV still can receive programs based on broadcast
standards
> established 40 years ago.
Yes, your washing machine accepts the same fittings as old ones. So does
your computer. But your washer won't let you add new features without
replacing it. Your computer does. Just not all new features. And although
you knew this when you bought your computer, you're behaving as if it is
wrong. If it bothers you that upgrades are required, then stick solely to
hardware and software available from when you bought your PC. But don't
bother being indignant about it. It is tiresome.
>
> This accommodation is possible even though all of these devices are
relatively
> new.
>
> There is no point in trying to persuade me with technical arguments,
because I
> know better than to consider this a technical problem.
>
> > Please don't continue lambasting Nikon on the list
> > for assessing the current market for their wares
> > and ruling out a market segment that is only shrinking.
>
> I'm not convinced that they did that. If they had, they would know that
> professional computer users upgrade _far_ less often than casual users,
because
> established production systems and workflows cannot be rebuilt every six
months
> if a company wants to stay in business. Clearly, they are aiming the
product at
> amateurs, which is probably a mistake, given its price, which puts it at
the
> extreme high end of the "prosumer" range.
Less often than once every 6 years? I think you're projecting your
preference for stasis onto a larger part of the market than reality will
bear out. 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)
>
> > The LS 4000 produces huge files ...
>
> It produces files about twice the size of those produced by an LS-2000.
Any
> system that can handle files from an LS-2000 can handle them from an
LS-4000.
>
> > ... and Nikon apparently decided that anyone using
> > it isn't using commercially outdated hardware.
>
> Nikon was too cheap to support more than one environment, and assumed that
its
> entire user base would simply rebuild new systems from scratch just to
> accommodate a slightly better scanner. Or it assumed that all its
business
> would be new business. In either case, the company is not thinking
clearly.
No, I think it is more realistic to believe that Nikon estimated a vast
majority of their target audience could run Firewire. Heck, they even throw
in the interface card, just to be sure! 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.
>
> I'm just thankful that they aren't this shortsighted when it comes to
their film
> cameras, or I'd have to buy completely new lenses every two years.
>
> > The decision for Firewire makes sense, and it
> > isn't their fault Firewire isn't supported in NT.
>
> SCSI would work just as well, and it is easier to find. There is no
technical
> requirement for Firewire.
>
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 (and manufacturers often seem to have interesting
notions about termination), then you're right. There is no technical
requirement for Firewire. It just has advantages in this product.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
