Bye Bye RawShooter Premium

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
...
RW+/- wrote:
I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys
still haven't been able to even try Lightroom....

ROTFL

With Mac a dead/dying breed I'm in absolutely no hurry to try the VW of
computing.

While I am a dedicated IBM Compatible computer user -- and indeed, I earn
my
living developing software for this platform, I can honestly say that the
Mac
OS and its hardware platform is definitely NOT a dying breed. In fact,
its
adoption rate has been growing and a large retailer like Best Buy has
taken
notice and is testing a program in consideration of again selling Apple
computers chain wide.


Until Steve Job's gets over his arrogant "must control everything"
attitude and finally does a full port of OSX so it will run on any Intel
platform OSX
and Macs will continue to trail far behind the Wintel platform. As with
you, I've been a dedicated Winteler and also make my living on the
platform but I can tell you without hesitation that if I could buy a copy
of OSX
today and put it on one of my Dell's I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm
certain that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT
directors could deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all
their hardware.

That's what he thought when he released NeXTStep as a shrink-wrapped
product. We all know how that turned out.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
RW+/- wrote:
I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC
guys still haven't been able to even try Lightroom....

ROTFL

With Mac a dead/dying breed I'm in absolutely no hurry to try the
VW
of computing.

While I am a dedicated IBM Compatible computer user -- and indeed, I
earn my living developing software for this platform, I can honestly
say that the Mac OS and its hardware platform is definitely NOT a
dying breed. In fact, its adoption rate has been growing and a
large
retailer like Best Buy has taken notice and is testing a program in
consideration of again selling Apple computers chain wide.

A press release as seen by CreativePro:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/new...l?cprose=daily

On 6/27/06 6:42 AM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following:

Until Steve Job's gets over his arrogant "must control everything" attitude
and finally does a full port of OSX so it will run on any Intel platform OSX
and Macs will continue to trail far behind the Wintel platform.

Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your
sole criteria is unit sales.
As with
you, I've been a dedicated Winteler and also make my living on the platform
but I can tell you without hesitation that if I could buy a copy of OSX
today and put it on one of my Dell's I'd do it in a heartbeat.

As would tens of millions of others. But it isn't going to happen. Apple
has not aspired to be a software only company.
I'm certain
that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT directors could
deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all their hardware.

With the Intel Macs, that's possible today, to do so piecemeal without
replacing everything at once, as you can run windows on the Macs that
replace old equipment, and make transitions to OS X department by
department.

I don't know if it'll be wildly successful, but a number of folks on
usenet have said they got their first mac cause they can now boot
directly into Windows if need be, or run pretty fast in emulation, also
if they need to. But those are individuals, not IT depts.

--
John McWilliams

Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your sole
criteria is unit sales.

ROFLMAO!!! I absolutely love this typical response. In business, what
matters is unit sales. How many other "better" consumer technologies have
eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember
Betamax? Sony sure does.

As with
you, I've been a dedicated Winteler and also make my living on the
platform but I can tell you without hesitation that if I could buy a copy
of OSX today and put it on one of my Dell's I'd do it in a heartbeat.

As would tens of millions of others. But it isn't going to happen. Apple
has not aspired to be a software only company.
I'm certain
that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT directors
could deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all their
hardware.

With the Intel Macs, that's possible today, to do so piecemeal without
replacing everything at once, as you can run windows on the Macs that
replace old equipment, and make transitions to OS X department by
department.

The problem with this is again I have to replace my current investment in
hardware. Sure I could do that with mactels but that binds me to one
manufacture and in big companies and the government that's not what a
responsible IT department wants. I would never be able to convince any of
my bigger clients that this would be a good move. They want to know that
the next time the contract comes up or its time to change hardware they can
choose from multiple vendors.

Steve is an arrogant SOB and if it weren't for the success of gadgets like
the iPod Apple wouldn't have a pot to **** in. There is no good techical
reason for OSX NOT to run on current Intel hardware. The only reason now is
(the same as its always been) Steve's refusal to give up any sort of control
over the environment. So fine if that the way he wants it he and Apple will
always be second best even if the platform is technically the best.

Its a damn shame because, even as a Wintel user I'm convinced that Mac OSX
is a better OS and platform especialy for photo/vidobut I have to make a
living so as long as Wintel has the market share I'm a wintel kind o' guy.
That's the realities of life.

--

Rob

"G.T." wrote in message
...

Dying, yeah, right. Final Cut Pro setups are the fastest growing editing
stations on the market. And at my employer of 300,000 people

300,000 employees??? Who the hell do you work for? The Red Army?

On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following:
Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your sole
criteria is unit sales.

ROFLMAO!!! I absolutely love this typical response. In business, what
matters is unit sales.

Absolutely flat out wrong. What matters is profit, and over a long term.
In the intermediate, cash flow and reputation are king. When these
things are done well, shareholders become happy, which in some folk's
eyes, is the ultimate thing of matter.

How many other "better" consumer technologies have
eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember
Betamax? Sony sure does.

Apple's hardly failing, and not due solely to the iPod, as you wrote in
the part I deleted. (May respond to the last half later, but I think
your facile concept of business is important.)

By comparing Betamax to the Macintosh, you are of course re-emphasizing
market share, and that a superior technology lost out to marketing and
mass use. Yet it also implies that Mac is the superior technology, not
what you intend, I'm pretty sure.

Now, would you like to look at seriously high end products that have a
minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce,
are so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC.

--
John McWilliams

"Helen" wrote in message
news

"G.T." wrote in message
...

Dying, yeah, right. Final Cut Pro setups are the fastest growing
editing
stations on the market. And at my employer of 300,000 people

300,000 employees??? Who the hell do you work for? The Red Army?


Might as well be considering the bureaucracy around here.

http://www.hoovers.com/ge/--ID__1063...actsheet.xhtml

Greg

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following:
Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your
sole criteria is unit sales.

ROFLMAO!!! I absolutely love this typical response. In business, what
matters is unit sales.

Absolutely flat out wrong. What matters is profit, and over a long term.
In the intermediate, cash flow and reputation are king. When these things
are done well, shareholders become happy, which in some folk's eyes, is
the ultimate thing of matter.

LOL You continue to invest in Apple... I've already made a fortune with
Microsoft.


How many other "better" consumer technologies have
eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember
Betamax? Sony sure does.

Apple's hardly failing, and not due solely to the iPod, as you wrote in
the part I deleted. (May respond to the last half later, but I think your
facile concept of business is important.)

By comparing Betamax to the Macintosh, you are of course re-emphasizing
market share, and that a superior technology lost out to marketing and
mass use. Yet it also implies that Mac is the superior technology, not
what you intend, I'm pretty sure.

This is exactly what I intended.


Now, would you like to look at seriously high end products that have a
minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce, are
so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC.


Remind me, who own Rolls now? Or are you actually saying that the Mac is
the "Rolls" of computer platforms... LOL That's funny.


John, here is the simple fact. Steve Jobs has held that company back from
being the king of the personal computer world for years due to his own
arrogance and stubbornness. If I were a stock holder I'd be ****ed.
Meanwhile Bill Gates/ IBM/ Intel have done everything business right to
secure the market. All I am simply stating is that if Steve would get off
his high horse and make a few simple changes to his platform he could really
give Wintel a run for it's money and in many markets truly take over. As
an apparent Mac user and assumable a share holder I'd think that's what
you'd like to see happen.

--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"

John McWilliams wrote:

On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following:
Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your
sole criteria is unit sales.

ROFLMAO!!! I absolutely love this typical response. In business, what
matters is unit sales.

Absolutely flat out wrong. What matters is profit, and over a long term.
In the intermediate, cash flow and reputation are king. When these
things are done well, shareholders become happy, which in some folk's
eyes, is the ultimate thing of matter.

How many other "better" consumer technologies have
eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember
Betamax? Sony sure does.

Apple's hardly failing, and not due solely to the iPod, as you wrote in
the part I deleted. (May respond to the last half later, but I think
your facile concept of business is important.)

By comparing Betamax to the Macintosh, you are of course re-emphasizing
market share, and that a superior technology lost out to marketing and
mass use. Yet it also implies that Mac is the superior technology, not
what you intend, I'm pretty sure.

Now, would you like to look at seriously high end products that have a
minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce,
are so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC.

So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol?

Not needed, you and your clone buddies make the smallest differences
important ones.