[filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

Andras writes:

> It wouldn't be the first time they tried to
> cripple their lower-priced products so as to
> force many desktop users to upgrade to a more
> expensive alternative.

You seem to incorrectly believe that Microsoft is somehow unique in this
respect.  It's not.  It's standard industry practice.  Everyone does it.

> The limit there is 2^64 bytes, which, however,
> is so large that I don't believe we will ever
> have to worry about getting close to it.

That is by far the most common mistake of all engineers everywhere:
underestimating future requirements.

Exactly the same thing was said of 32 bits, and 16 bits, and even 8 bits no
doubt.  Engineers _always_ get it wrong, and they _always_ refuse to believe
that they should build in more capacity for the future.

I'd suggest planning for 128-bit addressing, and allowing for expansion
beyond that.

> My argument for this is that 2^64 is a 20-digit
> number and thus comparable to the number of
> silicon atoms in a complex electronic device like
> a CPU or a memory chip.

You are overlooking key considerations, the most important of which is
uneven allocation of the address space.  Having an address space of 2^64
doesn't mean that 2^64 bytes of RAM will actually be present.  Typically the
address space will be virtually allocated in a hugely inefficient way (by
engineers who think that they'll never run out of address space), and will
be completely exhausted _long_ before any physical limit is reached.  This
has happened again, and again, and again, because of the extreme
shortsightedness of engineers.

Good examples abound.  This is one of the primary limiting factors on 32-bit
IP addresses, and it is also a limiting factor on IPv6 and IPv8 addressing.
Engineers just cannot see very well into the future, it seems, and no amount
of explanation seems sufficient to make them understand this.

> That reminds me of a question I sometimes ask
> myself -- how many people still use CMYK?

Only the entire world.  CMYK is the basis for the printed word and image
everywhere on the planet.

> I can't see the point of using a colourspace
> like that that has nothing in common with either
> input or output devices.

Essentially all printed output devices are CMYK.  Dealing with CMYK is
extraordinarily important, and it is one of the most important features of
Photoshop.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body