"The technology assets of Pixmantec ApS have been acquired by Adobe"

[sidfrisby]

Anyone using Raw Shooter will be interested in this.

http://www.pixmantec.com/company/adobe.asp

all the best

[Daniel Harrison]

but I don't see it as a good thing. Is there no competition anywhere???? I guess the best thing to do is sell up RSP and portfolio and get lightroom when it arrives. It really was a great program, kinda sad to see it die like that.

[Dierk Haasis]

That explains a lot about developments during the past few weeks. And it leaves us with some highly interesting questions:

1. Will Corel still bundle RS|e?
2. Since Lightroom originally was built around ACR - will LR Windows beta still be coming this side of New Year's Eve?
3. Will ACR eventually be completely scrapped for the superior RS|P?
4. How good will the upgrade path from RS|P to LR be?
5. What about the features in the making, the ones many users of RS|P asked for and where probably really be worked on?

Well, Adobe did acquire lots of technology, companies and products in the past and did come up with superior sw from it (example: CoolEdit Pro -> Audition 1.5/2)

[scott kirkpatrick]

What's your perspective (inside, outside, or roadside) on this?

scott

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Exciting news indeed if it holds its promise. Now we must wait and see, and perhaps give some more serious attention to Lightroom. For those on the Mac platform who have not had access to RSP (whose creator if I'm not mistaken was also a developer of Capture One) this is particularly good news, all the more so since C1 has been dragging its development feet for some time now.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Dierck Haasis, please share what you know or have observed("that will explain developments of the last weeks..."

Michael Tapes appears to be quite tied up handling the responses at the Pixmantec Forums. I hope his decafe latte isn't getting cold.

scott

[Tom Henkel]

One of the things I find fascinating about graphic/digital image processing software marketplace is the number of independent software companies offering such a broad spectrum of innovative products. It is reminiscent of the early days of the PC market. The big downside of this type of market is it is ripe for consolidation. While there are some very nice software products available from indepenent sources, it probably doesn't make sense to become too committed to any of them.

In this case, clearly Adobe sees Lightroom as a competitive threat. Acquiring technology is usually a faster path to building a competitive alternative rather than building it in-house. The big question is how will the Pixamantec technology re-emerge in Adobe products? Incorporated into a future version of PS? Another addition to Creative Suite? And how well integreated will it be. CS already has a number of inconsistencies from product to product.

Tom

[Tony Bonanno]

Having found the Raw Shooter software quite intriguing and using it often (RSP), and feeling good that there were "options" such as Pixmantec, I'm a little disturbed by this announcement. Maybe it will result in a better "Lightroom" and/or ACR, but I'm concerned that it is an example of "eliminating" some talented competition. I wonder if RawShooter was just too much of a threat to Adobe's "raw future" with the PC market. I would like to think it was a deal based on wanting to incorporate worthwhile technology, but you have to wonder. Hopefully, it will turn out to be a good thing, time will tell... I'll miss the refreshing "pricing" and philosophy of Pixmantec.

[Dierk Haasis]

Dierk Haasis, please share what you know or have observed("that will explain developments of the last weeks..."

Only what everybody else saw - and it may well be said I overinterpret after the fact: long time no hear from pixmantec, Michael's own comments on R&D became formulaic, no new products from pixmantec (although they wanted to provide a complete suite of imaging solutions), and not to forget the rather sudden demise of MT as the official speaker of pixmantec.

Can't say I 'always' wondered about what pixmantec's founders were really after, competing against Adobe and Corel or showing off their technical and marketing prowess. I mean, leaving C1 to do the exact same over again? Producing a good product with the best marketing campaign I've seen in years - for what, another runner-up?

Let's not jump to conclusions but I actually hope that it was a very early idea in pixmantec's plan: Getting to be bought out by a big company. Although I thought, months back, it would be Corel.

[Tom Yi]

Great, the whole reason I liked and used RSP and RSE before that was that it was un CS2. It was simple, fast, cheap, and most importantly still a powerful RAW processing tool.

I guess I'm ok until I upgrade bodies, since they won't be supported by my current RSP.

[Don Lashier]

> I'm concerned that it is an example of "eliminating" some talented competition.

Macromedia may have been a case of eliminating competition, but I think given the primitive underpinnings of ACR that this is more a case of getting serious about competing with Aperture (and C1 for that matter) by putting a good engine in the jalopy. There may have been a bit of pre-emptive elimination also as I'm sure MS is in the hunt, and they never develop, just buy.

- DL

[John_Nevill]

Classic vertical integration on Adobe's part and a nice little earner for Pixmantec. What more can one say? A resounding business success.

But as a RSP user it does raise the issue of "open" sidecar files along with open RAW file formats, especially when you have 10,000s of them.

Perhaps the RAW software vendors should aim for standardisation and start using xml sidecars!

[scott kirkpatrick]

Can't say I 'always' wondered about what pixmantec's founders were really after, ... I mean, leaving C1 to do the exact same over again? Producing a good product with the best marketing campaign I've seen in years - for what, another runner-up?



Well, I remember the funny mixture of messages that we got when they were leaving C1. There was a lot of fuss about a promised, or hinted roadmap that was never met, and Michael Tapes saying that the situation was about to improve greatly. Then development of the DSLR product in C1 slowed even more while they refocussed on supporting the medium format back business, which is probably doing well. And RawShooter started up with only the DSLR business to care about. There are only two objectives for a startup that I know of -- IPO or buyout. With the slim margins and long period of only free products that RS worked with, the IPO must have gotten further and further away, so aren't you happier that the technology finds a home in Adobe, which can really use it and has an end-to-end product with some real DAM aspirations, rather than Corel?

[Dierk Haasis]

I am definitely not unhappy with what has happened, as can be seen on pixmantec's forum. Personally I had some other ideas about development and cooperation between companies. Well, Lightroom was already on my agenda.

[Sid Jervis]

I like the idea of RSP getting to the point of being cross platform. Pixmantec were never likely to develop into that arena in the short or medium term. So for me, I see it as a plus.
And to be honest, If you ran a private company and Adobe wandered up and wanted to buy your "tech assets", you bet the signature would be a fast one.

Good move.

[John Hollenberg]

I have probably done more beta testing on RSP than anyone else (my current bug list is well over 100 bugs). Brilliantly designed, but still some faults in implementation. It is a disappointment to lose this product now, but may be beneficial in the long run--especially for Adobe Lightroom users. Perhaps Adobe will have the resources to fill in the gaps.

When buying a new product from a small company, one never knows if the company or software will survive. I feel that I got my moneys worth with RSP, and will continue to use it until something better comes along. I don't think Adobe bought Pixmantec to "stifle the competition". I think they saw value in the technology and that it WILL end up in their product down the line. As one who hates ACR, having the technology in RSP incorporated into an Adobe product gives it a certain measure of immortality that it probably wouldn't have otherwise.

Just my thoughts.

--John

[Robert Edwards]

Hi John,

But as a RSP user it does raise the issue of "open" sidecar files along with open RAW file formats, especially when you have 10,000s of them.

Best case scenario is Adobe Pixmantec make a conversion utility so your RSP sidecars translate to Lightroom. I'm sure it was Michael Tapes who had Phase One make such a tool when Capture One changed their database. Edit: On second thoughts Adobe could simply make a RSP to DNG converter.

Perhaps the RAW software vendors should aim for standardisation and start using xml sidecars!

I hear you there! Not just for RAW converters but image browsers and asset management apps too. My guess is Adobe's XMP will win, it's already being supported by several other apps.

[Winston Mitchell]

I wish they had lasted long enough to include support for Sony's raw format (ARW). Now I find myself with a defunct camera (KM-7D wedded to a defunct raw converter. For me, the benefits of an efficient raw converter out weigh the benifits of a body upgrade unless sony does something truly astounding.

Since I won't switch converters unless something comes along at least as good as RSP, I'll stick with my 7D/RSP combo until the shutter dies.

I spent some time in the Lightroom forums this afternoon...doesn't look like a good candidate for an RSP replacement quite some time, if ever.

[Don Lashier]

> my current bug list is well over 100 bugs

Then this should fit right in with Adobe products ;)

- DL

[John Hollenberg]

> my current bug list is well over 100 bugs

Then this should fit right in with Adobe products ;)

- DL

Yes, I was wondering if they paid extra for the bugs or if they
were thrown in for free :-) It could be that they were experiencing
a shortage and just wanted to make sure they had a good supply
on hand.

However, I must say that most of the bugs didn't keep RSP from being
a lean, mean converting machine. I will keep using it until I see something
better, or until I buy a camera which it doesn't support.

--John

[Diane Fields]

However, I must say that most of the bugs didn't keep RSP from being
a lean, mean converting machine. I will keep using it until I see something
better, or until I buy a camera which it doesn't support.

--John

I agree completely---the bugs never affected me in any appreciable way. I'll keep using it--and C1 too, to keep my hand in on that one, until I find something else that works as efficiently and well as RSP.

[Rob.Martin]

This does come as a surprise to me. But I guess this is one of those inevitable "big guys clean up" things. RAWSooter is the only RAW prog I have not used, for some reason, but with C1, ACR, Lightroom, DXO, ACDSee, Bibble et al seems to me there is plenty to choose from still.

The fact they've sold out should be no surprise, despite them being touted as the "Alternative". I always thought they'd pull a stunt, albeit a commercial decision, like this.

Good on them, take the money and run..... why not??

Rob

[rob]

Good on them, take the money and run..... why not??

That appears to have happened :-/ Oh well, they got some of my money as well and will no doubt be demanding more for the upgrade path out of this mess - it's ok, I am obviously a bottomless supply of cash for them :-/.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Yes, I was wondering if they paid extra for the bugs or if they
were thrown in for free :-) It could be that they were experiencing
a shortage and just wanted to make sure they had a good supply
on hand.

However, I must say that most of the bugs didn't keep RSP from being
a lean, mean converting machine. I will keep using it until I see something
better, or until I buy a camera which it doesn't support.

--John

You must know the Japanese memory manufacturing story? Where IBM tentatively bought their first shipment of Hitachi memory chips, imposing a tough quality standard of 3 ppm failures at maximum. When the first box arrived in Poughkeepsie, the IBMers opened it and found a little envelope on the top, containing three chips, and a note: "here are your 3 bad chips. We don't know what you want them for, but the contract called for it..."

I will also keep using RSP and the Oly E-1 until they pry my cold dead fingers off them, but with an E-3 coming out this fall, who knows what is next. My thanks, not only to Michael -- who took the most guff, but at least got paid for it -- and the rest of you volunteers who got only ego points, for making RSP such a useful product in such a short time. Now let's go give Adobe the full force of our accumulated knowledge :<). There's already an acknowledged Lightroom guy on the Pixmantec forums. Unfortunately he is talking about how great Lightroom is already on track to be. This will be an interesting technology shootout, but the insider group always has the advantage of checked-in code

scott.

[Nicolas Claris]

To all
I guess that Michael Tapes is very busy at the moment, I'm sure he will be back ASAP and answer your questions.
I'm sure you'll understand and be patient...

[Andrew Rodney]

This is all speculation on my part, that said....

Unless this deal was in the works for a LONG time, I doubt you'll see the fruits of the software in version 1 since it has been said publicly by the LR team they hope to have the first version out before the end of this year. In my mind, that means RSP technology will likely be a version 2.0 reality OR Adobe purchased them to kill the competition.

[Nigel Atkinson]

After reading this thread I went to download the latest version of RSP (while it is still there). I haven't used it for a while, and it was interesting to be reminded just how good the user interface is - especially when compared to Bridge.

Hopefully there will be a net gain for customers ...

Nigel

[Rob.Martin]

Interesting when this happens we all tend to look back at what we have, or review those ones we may not have tried. I bought a MacBookPro Core Duo, hoping Lightroom and Aperture woudl be quicker. Wrong answer. C1 still does the trick for me.
Cheers,
Rob

After reading this thread I went to download the latest version of RSP (while it is still there). I haven't used it for a while, and it was interesting to be reminded just how good the user interface is - especially when compared to Bridge.

Hopefully there will be a net gain for customers ...

Nigel

[Don Lashier]

> Wrong answer. C1 still does the trick for me.

Me too. Maybe it's just momentum but I've tried all the various RC's that came along (except Silkypix) and still see no reason to switch from C1, not only speed-wise but quality-wise.

- DL

[Sean DeMerchant]

Having found the Raw Shooter software quite intriguing and using it often (RSP), and feeling good that there were "options" such as Pixmantec, I'm a little disturbed by this announcement. Maybe it will result in a better "Lightroom" and/or ACR, but I'm concerned that it is an example of "eliminating" some talented competition. I wonder if RawShooter was just too much of a threat to Adobe's "raw future" with the PC market. I would like to think it was a deal based on wanting to incorporate worthwhile technology, but you have to wonder. Hopefully, it will turn out to be a good thing, time will tell... I'll miss the refreshing "pricing" and philosophy of Pixmantec.

Bear in mind that RSE/RSP are x86 CPU only and then require the SSE instruction set (recent x86 cpus). Apple just switched to Intel CPU's so hopefully we will see an integration rather than elimation.

I find RSE/RSP to handle high contrast and low light shots far better than ACR. ACR has far more noise and crazy behavior around extreme contrast.

RSE/RSP both show exposure detail as you consider the conversion. ACR does not. This can help you understand what you shot quite a bit.

Personally, I think it would be awesome to have a hybrid conversion of ACR and RSE/RSP and get the best of both. Though at this time, for easy Velvia/E-100 VS looks I like SilkyPix.

RSE/RSP also has better built in sharpening than ACR to my eyes.

In the end, this may be a result of Apple's Intel switch, and at a minimum, Apple's Intel switch bodes better for this acquisition.

some supposition and opinion,

Sean

[Sean DeMerchant]

This is all speculation on my part, that said....

Unless this deal was in the works for a LONG time, I doubt you'll see the fruits of the software in version 1 since it has been said publicly by the LR team they hope to have the first version out before the end of this year. In my mind, that means RSP technology will likely be a version 2.0 reality OR Adobe purchased them to kill the competition.

Stepping back the the SSE instruction set and Fat Binaries (or whatever Apple is calling them with this CPU architecture change) it may be a 2.0 so LR can support the Power architecture chips in 1.0 and drop it in 2.0. And AFAIK and have heard, it is the SSE instruction set (Altivec on x86) that make RSE/RSP fast.

more speculation,

Sean

[Michael Tapes]

but I don't see it as a good thing. Is there no competition anywhere???? I guess the best thing to do is sell up RSP and portfolio and get lightroom when it arrives. It really was a great program, kinda sad to see it die like that.

Adobe is planning to give a good upgrade path the RSP owners, so think twice before you sell your RSP.

[Michael Tapes]

That explains a lot about developments during the past few weeks. And it leaves us with some highly interesting questions:

1. Will Corel still bundle RS|e?
2. Since Lightroom originally was built around ACR - will LR Windows beta still be coming this side of New Year's Eve?
3. Will ACR eventually be completely scrapped for the superior RS|P?
4. How good will the upgrade path from RS|P to LR be?
5. What about the features in the making, the ones many users of RS|P asked for and where probably really be worked on?

Well, Adobe did acquire lots of technology, companies and products in the past and did come up with superior sw from it (example: CoolEdit Pro -> Audition 1.5/2)

1 - As Far as I know.
2 - Windows Preview version of LR is tentatively planned for this summer AFAIK. Will be same feature set as Mac at release of official version.
3 - No. The plan is synergy between ACR and RSP technologies. I suspect that the UI will be LR, and the ACR RAW engine will change somewhat under the hood to accommodate RSP technologies where they would yield improvements over the current ACR engine. SYNERGY between the 2.
4 - What Adobe is discussing internally seems fair to me. I think RSP users will split on their opinion, but i would feel that way no matter what Adobe does.
5 - Many of those are already in LR. The question is a bit vague, but even if you got specific, I would not know the answer.

Hope that this helps..

[Michael Tapes]

What's your perspective (inside, outside, or roadside) on this?

scott

Check out my response to the other posts and also at Pixmantec. Also some of my perspective I will keep to myself. In general, I am happy for Pixmantec, and I think Lightroom will be a better product for it, and in the end we all win because RSP R&D can do more at LR then they could in their limited resource base of Pixmantec. obviously communications should have been better.

[Michael Tapes]

The big question is how will the Pixmantec technology re-emerge in Adobe products? Incorporated into a future version of PS? Another addition to Creative Suite? And how well integrated will it be.
Tom

The RSP technology will be merged into the ACR RAW engine and appear in both Lightroom and CS3. At least that is the best I can deduct from my discussions with Adobe. of course all of this is new and subject to change, but I believe that the desire is to take the best of RSP algorithms and get into the ACR RAW engine ASAP. How much they can do before the release of Lightroom remains to be seen, but since the ACR engine is a separate component, it should not be too hard to offer it between major LR upgrades as they have done with ACR for PS. This is AFAIK, not the 100% gospel..

[Michael Tapes]

This is all speculation on my part, that said....

Unless this deal was in the works for a LONG time, I doubt you'll see the fruits of the software in version 1 since it has been said publicly by the LR team they hope to have the first version out before the end of this year. In my mind, that means RSP technology will likely be a version 2.0 reality OR Adobe purchased them to kill the competition.

Andrew,

I have spent a lot of time with Thomas and other Hi-level Adobe people this week, and I would say that based on my information and observations, you have this one wrong, but I understand why you say it..

[Michael Tapes]

Stepping back the the SSE instruction set and Fat Binaries (or whatever Apple is calling them with this CPU architecture change) it may be a 2.0 so LR can support the Power architecture chips in 1.0 and drop it in 2.0. And AFAIK and have heard, it is the SSE instruction set (Altivec on x86) that make RSE/RSP fast.

more speculation,

Sean

Not totally sure of your point, but I can tell you that RSP is a speed demon on my MacBook Pro. It is the fastest Windows box that I own. Faster than my AMD 64 X2 dual core 4400+.

[Tom Yi]

hey hey hey...
Looks like Michael finally got somewhat caught up with the avalanche of stuff happening at Pixmantec forum and all the dealings with Adobe to come back to this forum.

Nice to hear from you again. I wrote sent you a PM, but I'll reiterate a bit...

I really really really like RSE and RSP. I got into shooting RAW b/c of RSE. I think I've had every version of RSE till RSP came out and I remember asking Michael about when RSP will be released at dpr's forum and got it the first day it came out. What I really like about RSP besides the speed issue is that it's simple, effective, and cheap. The thought of buying books as thick as phone books and taking courses to learn CS2 send shivers up my spine. I've no time for that. What I want and like about RSP is that it keeps to the KISS method (keep it simple stupid).

For all of us that like and use RSP/RSE, it's not dead, yes it will not be upgraded any further, but it works just fine for the bodies we have and I guess when we upgrade bodies, then we'll have to decide at that point what to use for RAW conversion.

My only hope is that LR becomes more like RSP/RSE, cheap, fast, and highly effective too for working on RAW photos, first and foremost. I hope LR's extended capabilities to organize, do slide shows, print, have plug in's don't ruin the main purpose. To allow photogs to work on RAW images in a fast and effective way.

Arguably, PS was made more for digital graphic types first and was more or less adopted by photogs. LR will hopefully fix that, so that we photogs will have a product geared for us to work on RAW images.

I was saddened and upset like everyone else. Now that I've got my senses back. I'm hoping that LR will be what RSP was and a bit more, that it won't cost an arm and a leg, and that it'll be a speed demon as well.

Since you have Adobe and the inside folks ear, I'm hoping you can relay my feelings (I don't think I'm the only one with this feeling) to the folks developing LR.
Thanks

[Herb]

Seems that life today is one long round of spin and hype. Everything designed to further big business is dressed up as being solely for the good of the customer. Well, sorry, but the details of any upgrade path to Adobe don't interest me. People have used the words 'Adobe' and 'innovation' in the same sentence. Hello! Haven't you noticed? Monopoly suppliers are not strong on innovation. I supported RS mainly because it was written - allegedly - by creative, 'little' people. And supported by Michael who I used to think of as a little peoples champion. Well; I admit it - I was stupid and naive. But I'm not so stupid or naive as to bite hard on the bait for the 'upgrade path' to something that was declared the industry standard when it was released some years ago, yet seems to need constant improvement. Time to support Canon - they are, IMHO, the only company to have steadfastly resisted the bullying tactics of Adobe. DPP is easy to use, no Big Brother spyware activation and it's regarded as the top performer by the best guys we can hear from (at least we could hear until RG eradicated them from the face of the photo world).

I also must praise Andrew Rodney for his forthright statement on the true situation. Andrew is well connected, but this is not the first time when he has acknowledged the truth to customers while others spin a load of marketing BS for their own promotion. Probably wont help his bank account. But if he could bank respect, he'd be a millionaire.

Thanks Andrew.

[Michael Tapes]

Herb,

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and clearly Adobe is a giant and will not become or act like a garage company ever. But also, behind a corporate entity are the people doing the work. And I can clearly say that at the people level, even pretty high up, all of their desires are to build the best product they can. Will it be as cheap or nimble as RSP...I would doubt it. How can it be when it has larger goals, and is cross platform, with an identical interface.

But to impugn the people, including myself, in your statement is not fair IMHO.

I am trying to help here, at no pay. If Adobe begins to pick up my tab, then I can help more. If not (and there is no promise) then I can help less. But I find your cynicism a bit harsh.

You are entitled to your opinion, and Andrew his, and me mine. But your implication that I have changed my stripes, is unfair. I am simply trying to make things as good as I can for the RSP users, presently at no gain for myself. I cannot do more than that.

And personally I like LR. I did before the acquisition and I do now. If I did not, I would say so and work with Adobe to improve it. Is it perfect.....no...just ask Adobe. They are the first to say so and are welcoming input to make it serve the needs of the Pro photographer community. While that may not match up perfectly with ALL of the users of RSP, well, life is not perfect.

After all, RSP was not the perfect program for the users of RSP. It was a great effort, working hard to catch up to all that it could be. Whether it could have made it or not, we will never know. But the owners had that dream, and had money come in from a different source, perhaps RSP might have continued. But the money came in this way, and I and the people at Pixmantec believe that more people can be served, by creating a synergy with Adobe, then struggling on their own.

Let's keep an open mind to see how this goes. That is what I am doing, and I am feeding back to Adobe as much as I can to make LR as good as it can be. Adobe has given all of us the opportunity to do this...now on Mac and in about 2 months (my guess) on Windows. The program is far from complete, so it it not too late to provide influence and direction. Of course in the end it will be Adobe who makes the decisions, and it will be our decision to buy or not.

JMHO YMMV

[John_Nevill]

Michael,

I share your sentiments, but its been nearly a week since the Adobe acquisition of pixmantec and i've heard nothing as a customer from either of them regards continuity (excluding the "find it yourself "ambiguous pdf) and they do have customer details.

Ironically, I decided to leave the Pixmantec fourm as it started to lose its purpose, if you know what I mean?

BTW, I signed up for LR-W months ago, and its still vapourware. In contrast, I received an email from iView outlining support and a clear transition map within 24 hours of the deal.

Adobe's/Pixmantec's lack of direct communication is poor customer relations by any standard of the imagination, I suppose this ignorance of customers can be construed as insulting and is what triggers such heartfelt reactions.

I'm eagerly awaitng LR and will endeavour to feedback, I have no gripe against Adobe, so I'll go in with an open mind.

IMO, Adobe/Pixmantec should have kept the whole thing under wraps and tied the announcement into LR-W beta release. That may have been enough to allay / sweeten customers concerns.

Just my 2 cents!

[Michael Tapes]

Michael,

I share your sentiments, but its been nearly a week since the Adobe acquisition of pixmantec and i've heard nothing as a customer from either of them ...

Adobe's/Pixmantec's lack of direct communication is poor customer relations by any standard of the imagination, I suppose this ignorance of customers can be construed as insulting and is what triggers such heartfelt reactions.

I'm eagerly awaitng LR and will endeavour to feedback, I have no gripe against Adobe, so I'll go in with an open mind.


I cannot disagree with any of the above.. I wish it had been handled better. For all of us :>)

[Dierk Haasis]

Michael, could you try to keep us up-to-date here? The pixmantec forum is not at all a help anymore; I quit visiting for good with my last posts Tuesday.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Um...I like the ACR interface... Is it going to go? I had it worked down to a tee, nice and simple, I think there will be confusing days to come...

[Michael Tapes]

There is a lot of information at the Pixmantec site where I will continue to moderate on Adobe's behalf. Also Kevin Conner from Adobe made the following post yesterday (actually made a few)...


...originally posted on www.pixmantec.com on July 7, 2006.
As the head of product management for professional digital imaging at Adobe, let me give my apologies for not having provided more information to date on the acquisition. We have not communicated as well as we should have. I can assure you, however, that many of us at Adobe have been reading all of your concerns here and in other forums over the past two weeks, and we have also had many conversations with Michael Tapes to get his feedback. We are working hard to resolve issues and put the right plans in place for Pixmantec customers. We are still hammering out details on some things, however, so I'm afraid that I can't provide all of the answers that you might like just yet. What I can say is the following:

Whether any of you ever purchase another product from Adobe, you are now all Adobe customers in our eyes, and your satisfaction matters to us just as much as any other customer. We can't expect you to be happy about the fact that we're discontinuing the RawShooter products. What we can do, however, is make this transition as painless as possible. That means keeping this forum going as long as it's needed, providing an easy transition (both in cost and in workflow) to other products, and listening to all of your product concerns and requests.

Let me also state emphatically that the goal of this acquisition is not about taking another raw converter off the market. Our goal at Adobe is providing the best possible photography solutions, and we recognized the ability of the Pixmantec team to help us do that. The discontinuation of RawShooter is just an unfortunate byproduct of that decision. While you may not feel today that this decision was the best thing for Pixmantec customers, our goal is that one or two years from now, as you enjoy the fruits of this partnership, you do feel that way.

Thanks for your passion and your patience, and please stay tuned...

- Kevin Connor

--------------------
Sr. Dir. of Product Management, Adobe

[Michael Tapes]

Um...I like the ACR interface... Is it going to go? I had it worked down to a tee, nice and simple, I think there will be confusing days to come...

My understanding is the following....

The "ACR" interface (updated of course as each release is) will remain in Photoshop CS3 due to be released in Spring, last I heard.

The "Lightroom" interface, is quite different, and is still in development, as is CS3.

The underlying RAW conversion engine shares the identical code for both applications, but is driven by different UI implementations for each product. I have seen Thomas Knoll publicly discuss that the next ACR might move toward what you now see in the Lightroom beta. Clearly they have announced that the Adjustments from ACR and Lightroom will be interchangeable, regardless of which interface is used at any time in the process. At least that is their stated goal.

[Diane Fields]

There is a lot of information at the Pixmantec site where I will continue to moderate on Adobe's behalf. Also Kevin Conner from Adobe made the following post yesterday (actually made a few)...

Interesting. I've stopped going to the Pixmantec forum because it seemed primarily just to be rants about being cheated, etc. so I'm glad you posted this here---and I may check it out this morning just to see what's what. (in reference to you noting that other Adobe folks have visited).

I do plan to try the LR beta--and since I'm a heavy user of PS, I have few qualms about trying yet another Adobe product. I'm rather in a quandary right now--I've been a user of RSP and C1LE primarily for a good while. I have other RCs on my harddrive, but am not 'in love' with them---even tried Canon's 2 (DPP and the upgrade for Zoombrowser last night--just not enough control for me--among other things). I guess, after watching the LR videos several times, I'm wondering whether LR will be enough--or too much LOL. I can't imagine not going into PS to continue since I also use masks and layers quite a lot--plus I prefer my own mono processing. So--its sort of a wait and see thing for me--though I'd rather be using the RC I will be using primarily in the futures than be out here in 'undecided' land. Hopefully, the Win LR beta isn't too far down the road.

Diane

[Michael Tapes]

Diane,

Always good to hear from you!

To the best of my knowledge...

1 - Windows LR is 6-8 weeks away (could be more or less of course)

2 - B/W capabilities in LR are excellent.

3 - There is open discussion that local adjustment might at some point make it to LR (don't look for it in V1.0)

4 - I believe that the design goal for LR is to be "just enough" so that you can go from ingest to print without having to leave LR. I do not think it will make it all the way there in V1.0, but I think I see the future :>)

The tone at the Pixmantec site has calmed down, and there is constructive discussion and suggestions going on. And I am confident that it will be the site of record for Adobe to make their posts that will be of interest to RSP users. of course there may be mailing or public press releases as well. They have a lot to announce, to tie up the loose ends of the acquisition announcement, so I am sure that we will see additional info from Pixmantec and Adobe shortly.

For me, I am sticking with RSP until their is reason to change. Right now I see those reasons being an official release of Lightroom, or my acquisition of a new camera that is not supported by RSP/CE.

[Dierk Haasis]

Well, good to hear that pixmantec's forum begins to wind down. Still waiting before I go back. Since Adobe has their own Web forum, which is available via Usenet, too, have you any idea when [not if, that's a given] Adobe will incorporate the pixmantec forum into their site? I guess it will be folded into the Windows LR one.

Curiously - and I am happy to be a supporter of OpenRAW - Nikons' latest announcements concerning the D2xs may end my stint with RSP prematurely. Not that I get me an 's' but I will surely fetch the firmware update for my D2x, and it could well be this update will give me the "new" NEF format Nikon announced for the D2xs - incompatible with all RAW converters.*


*I don't consider PictureProject a RAW converter.

[Diane Fields]

Diane,

Always good to hear from you!

To the best of my knowledge...

1 - Windows LR is 4-8 weeks away (could be more or less of course)

2 - B/W capabilities in LR are excellent.

3 - There is open discussion that local adjustment might at some point make it to LR (don't look for it in V1.0)

4 - I believe that the design goal for LR is to be "just enough" so that you can go from ingest to print without having to leave LR. I do not think it will make it all the way there in V1.0, but I think I see the future :>)

The tone at the Pixmantec site has calmed down, and there is constructive discussion and suggestions going on. And I am confident that it will be the site of record for Adobe to make their posts that will be of interest to RSP users. of course there may be mailing or public press releases as well. They have a lot to announce, to tie up the loose ends of the acquisition announcement, so I am sure that we will see additional info from Pixmantec and Adobe shortly.

For me, I am sticking with RSP until their is reason to change. Right now I see those reasons being an official release of Lightroom, or my acquisition of a new camera that is not supported by RSP/CE.

That sounds promising. I did understand that there is b/w processing in LR, so we'll see on that. I can understand that everything certainly won't make it all the way in v1.0--but, if I like the workflow, I can stick around. At the moment, I'm using RSP totally--I still like it a lot for my work.

I'll check back at the Pixmantec site just to keep up on what's occuring with Adobe on that front.

Thanks, Diane

[Winston Mitchell]

4 - I believe that the design goal for LR is to be "just enough" so that you can go from ingest to print without having to leave LR.
Does/will LR support print-to-file with user selectable printer profiles?

[Rob.Martin]

For me, speed is of the essence. I mean there are trade offs, but I need to understand them.

I have dual core hardware, PC and Mac.

C1 - nice on both
LR - slow on 17" MacBookPro (have another GB RAM on desk now to see if this helps...)
Aperture - ugh, slow as swimming through toffee.... again on the macbookpro

I never used RawShooter, have too many RAw converters, but I keep hearing how zippy it was.

C1 does if for me at present. Hopefully the nice UI of the Adobe Products get's up to my kinda speed.... Thomas.... speed baby speed.... just like tracking them Leopards down!!!

Cheers


Rob

[Dierk Haasis]

C1 - nice on both
LR - slow on 17" MacBookPro (have another GB RAM on desk now to see if this helps...)
Aperture - ugh, slow as swimming through toffee.... again on the macbookpro

Well, LR hasn't been code-optimised, yet, they have not even closed down for new features. C1, OTOH, is been around a while, tried and tested and optimised. Aperture ... it is sold as a final version, so, it should be tried, tested and optimised ...

[Don Lashier]

C1, OTOH, is been around a while, tried and tested and optimised.

C1 has been lightning fast from day one. The sad fact is that very few programmers know how to code efficiently. Michael Jonson (author of both C1 and RSP) is obviously one of those few.

The other sad fact is that unless proper consideration is given to fundamental design at an early stage, attempts at optimization are at best band-aids. I recall a case a number of years ago where a university called me in to speed up a network optimization program one of their profs had written. We had a one hour meeting where he outlined the algorithm he was using, and I said "fine, I'll get to work on it". He said "don't you want a copy of my code?". I said "no, it's obviously useless and I want to start from scratch so as not to get off on the wrong track". A month later I delivered a program that performed the same function in four seconds instead of four minutes, and on top of that used 1/10 the ram. He was convinced I was cheating even after viewing my source code and hearing my explanation of what I was doing. A couple years later I got a phone call and he said "now I finally understand what you're doing!". Duh, PhD is phuddy-duddy ;)

- DL

[Alain Briot]

Duh, PhD is phuddy-duddy ;)
- DL

Unfortunate isn't it? ALso interesting how people don't believe that you cando something well until they can "evidence" that you do.... What when they don't find that evidence? ;-)

[Don Lashier]

deleted dup post - don't know how that happened :(

Just to make this post useful rather than an idle placeholder - in the 80's I took ten years off from the high-tech world and worked as a truck driver and associated with other blue-collar workers such as welders (my wife was a welder) and loggers. What I learned was that their average intelligence was as high or higher than college graduates. Who goes to college and attains "high" position is not a function of intelligence but of social position, economics, and happenstance. Witness GB ;)

- DL

[Alain Briot]

deleted dup post - don't know how that happened :(

Just to make this post useful rather than an idle placeholder - in the 80's I took ten years off from the high-tech world and worked as a truck driver and associated with other blue-collar workers such as welders (my wife was a welder) and loggers. What I learned was that their average intelligence was as high or higher than college graduates. Who goes to college and attains "high" position is not a function of intelligence but of social position, economics, and happenstance. Witness GB ;)

- DL

Just add "doctor" after your name and your IQ shoots up dramatically ;- )

[scott kirkpatrick]

Just add "doctor" after your name and your IQ shoots up dramatically ;- )

Actually "Dr." goes in front of the name. "PhD." after is for psychologists.

But c'mon, guys. I am one of those that you are having such fun running down, (and I don't have the good sense to stay silent). I think writing decent code to operate in a production mode has gotten quite separated from understanding how computers think. We teach object oriented program structure and scripting languages because certain concepts can be gotten across clearly that way. Some of our students graduate into the real world without ever actually needing to use their own code on any problem of significant size. And some faculty members also don't ever need to cross this barrier. It's a constant source of frustration to me when a student addressing a problem in MATLAB or Java proves the feasibility of something that we have to start all over again to really solve. But I get some satisfaction showing them a solution that runs 1000x faster in C or even (whisper) Fortran.

So I don't disagree with you that there is something silly about claiming to understand a problem when you have only published an insight about it in a journal somewhere. But laugh at those individuals, not the class as a whole.

scott
(currently a prof, formerly an industrial researcher, physicist, journalist, auto-parts delivery boy...)

[Alain Briot]

For the record I also have a PhD, whether it goes before or after my name . . . ;-) Keeping a sense of humor and not taking oneself too seriously is important.

[Winston Mitchell]

4 - I believe that the design goal for LR is to be "just enough" so that you can go from ingest to print without having to leave LR.
My question got hijacked so I'll have to repeat it:
Does/will LR support print-to-file with user selectable printer profiles?

[Dierk Haasis]

Winston, IIU the LR Beta Podcast #8 right, it's still not decided.

[Winston Mitchell]

Thanks Dierk.

[Alain Briot]

My question got hijacked so I'll have to repeat it:
Does/will LR support print-to-file with user selectable printer profiles?

Yes, Lightroom Beta 3 lets you select any profile on your system. You can even build a list of your favorite profiles in Lightroom so that you don't have to wade through hundreds of arcane names each time. Very cool.

[Winston Mitchell]

Thanks Alain,

Just to clarify...does LR support printing to uninstalled printers (print-to-file)?

[Don Lashier]

But c'mon, guys. I am one of those that you are having such fun running down, (and I don't have the good sense to stay silent).
Sorry Scott, not trying to run down anyone, just pointing out the lack of correlation between letters after the name and smarts. I myself come from an academic family - my dad was a physics professor and all three of my siblings have postgraduate degrees while I'm the family underachiever with only a bachelor's in math.
I think writing decent code to operate in a production mode has gotten quite separated from understanding how computers think. We teach object oriented program structure and scripting languages because certain concepts can be gotten across clearly that way. Some of our students graduate into the real world without ever actually needing to use their own code on any problem of significant size.
That's a common criticism of a college education in general, in any field - it doesn't really prepare you for real world problems. In particular, (aptly named?) OOPS introduces an abstraction layer that further separates you from what's truly going on under the hood. IMO (and many "old timers") OOP, or at least in-appropriate use of OOP, has been a major contributer to code bloat and sluggishness of applications.

In the case I cited above, OOPS was not the issue as OOP was still largely an academic curiosity at the time. The issue was that the prof didn't truly understand what the algorithm was doing and coded it blindly from the theory book. It was a matrix operation (nested loops) and what he failed to realize was that all he cared about was the optimal result, not all the sub-optimal ones which he also calculated then discarded. Working the diagonal only is what permitted the dramatic enhancements. Elementary, and astounding that a prof who's consulting fee was 5x mine didn't see this (until two years later).

- DL

[Alain Briot]

Thanks Alain,

Just to clarify...does LR support printing to uninstalled printers (print-to-file)?

I haven't seen it in LR Beta 3. Maybe in a later version. Something to suggest to Adobe if you want to.

[Winston Mitchell]

Too bad. For me, another useless part of LR. I do all my printing off-site.

Thanks.

[Don Lashier]

My question got hijacked so I'll have to repeat it

Sorry Winston, didn't mean to hijack - it's called interleaving or multi-threading ;)

- DL

[Michael Tapes]

My question got hijacked so I'll have to repeat it:
Does/will LR support print-to-file with user selectable printer profiles?

Winston,

I took a look at the Mac beta and because i do not have a printer hooked up to my Mac at this time, I could not assign a print driver. I would suspect that this is an OS issue. If Mac normally allows print to file, then the answer is yes, but I am guessing. I suspect that Windows will also be subject to OS capabilities. Hopefully I will hook my mac to the network printer today and be able to answer your question.

[Winston Mitchell]

No harm...no foul ;-)

[Winston Mitchell]

Winston,

I took a look at the Mac beta and because i do not have a printer hooked up to my Mac at this time, I could not assign a print driver. I would suspect that this is an OS issue. If Mac normally allows print to file, then the answer is yes, but I am guessing. I suspect that Windows will also be subject to OS capabilities. Hopefully I will hook my mac to the network printer today and be able to answer your question.
It isn't an OS issue. Qimage does it by letting the user describe the output file. The user supplies canvas size, DPI, and the icc file used to filter the image on its way to the high-quality output JPG. The JPG is then lovingly transported to the destination printer where it is printed with "no corrections". Besides Qimage, it can also be done with Photoshop. More details at Dry Creek Photo (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm).

[Don Lashier]

> It isn't an OS issue.

Well, it can be. You're correct that QI and PS both support "print to file", but in Windows anyway, a printer definition can be set up with file as the output rather than a physical (or virtual) port.

- DL

[Winston Mitchell]

> Well, it can be...

Why would or how could any operating system prevent a program from creating a jpeg?

[Don Lashier]

> Why would or how could any operating system prevent a program from creating a jpeg?

Select "file" as the printer port, then print to that printer from the app. The app doesn't know it's actually going to a file.
http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/printtofile.jpg

- DL

[Andrew Rodney]

Andrew,

I have spent a lot of time with Thomas and other Hi-level Adobe people this week, and I would say that based on my information and observations, you have this one wrong, but I understand why you say it..

Well my "guess" that we will not see anything in 1.0 appears to be what Adobe said today:


Q: Lightroom is currently available only for the Mac platform, and RawShooter is available on Windows. Do you plan to turn RawShooter into your Windows version of Lightroom?

A: No. Our Windows version of Lightroom is already well under development and will be available as a public beta shortly. We will be taking the best technology in RawShooter and incorporating it into both the Mac and Windows versions of Lightroom, as well as into Adobe Camera Raw as it appears in Photoshop and other products. Incorporating RawShooter technology will take development time and may not be available within immediate versions of Lightroom. Customers who would like to be notified when the Windows beta of Lightroom becomes available should visit http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/ and click on the “sign up” link.


This was found here:

http://photoshopnews.com/2006/07/11/adobe-posts-updated-faqs-regarding-purchase-of-pixmantic/

[Andrew Rodney]

Yes, Lightroom Beta 3 lets you select any profile on your system. You can even build a list of your favorite profiles in Lightroom so that you don't have to wade through hundreds of arcane names each time. Very cool.

I think the question however was, can you export this as a file for print. The answer is YES if it's a single rendered image and NO if you want to do this from the Print module. There's been a lot of discussions over on the beta forum about this. Many users want to use the Print templates to produce stuff for print but not send it to a printer hooked up to LR (rather, export a rendered TIFF to send to a lab). That's not possible although you can export this as a PDF (and RIP it in Photoshop). Unfortunately, many labs will not accept the PDF even though they should.

[Andrew Rodney]

Actually I stand corrected. You can't export a file in anything but the three supported RGB working spaces. You can on the Mac create a PDF of anything you can print. So if you want to output to a file in a output color space (not export), you're going to generate a PDF in that color space.

[silica]

Adobe responds to Pixmantec acquisition concerns:

http://photoshopnews.com/2006/07/11/adobe-posts-updated-faqs-regarding-purchase-of-pixmantic/

[Alain Briot]

I think Michael is right. The print to file isn't necessarily part of the app. On the mac it is part of the printer driver. IP 6.1 has a direct print to file option though.

[Winston Mitchell]

I think Michael is right. The print to file isn't necessarily part of the app. On the mac it is part of the printer driver. IP 6.1 has a direct print to file option though.
Print-to-file has nothing to do with drivers. No driver is needed. All that is needed is the creation of a jpeg.

[Don Lashier]

Print-to-file has nothing to do with drivers. No driver is needed. All that is needed is the creation of a jpeg.
You mean like convert to profile followed by save-as in Photoshop? Lightroom can't do this?

- DL

[Andrew Rodney]

You mean like convert to profile followed by save-as in Photoshop? Lightroom can't do this?

- DL

That is correct. You can export an image in sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB OR print the image to your local printer using any ICC profile. Additionally you can export this as a PDF from the Print module.

A long thread indeed but this is discussed here:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=589&threadid=1169821

[Don Lashier]

That is correct. You can export an image in sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB OR print the image to your local printer using any ICC profile. Additionally you can export this as a PDF from the Print module.

That's a rather stupid limitation. C1 and any number of raw converters can do this (output to any profile). It's got to be a trivial fix, the amazing thing is that the designers overlooked this.

- DL

[Winston Mitchell]

That's what I'm trying to find out.

[Andrew Rodney]

It's trivial unless you consider that to export a file in any color space, it's handy to be able to soft proof it first (otherwise, all kinds of surprises). The LR forum has a lot of users asking about soft proofing. It's certainly necessary before printing and for the same reason, rendering a file to any output color space. We don't have that now. I suspect Adobe is trying to keep a lot of functionality real simple. Consider the Customize Proof Setup in Photoshop and how you really need all this junk to effectively soft proof an image. And you really need to have this soft proof and the original side by side (again, something you can do in Photoshop since it supports multiple windows of the same file in any soft proof). That's adding a lot to the current product.

Should LR rendered a print package as a TIFF or JPEG? I think so. You can do this now as a PDF (with no soft proof). So in a way, the Print module in LR is two steps forward compared to Photoshop and one good step back. Least we forget, you can't print anything (or even soft proof) in ACR but then, its supposed to be used and go away, opening the image in Photoshop.

[Winston Mitchell]

Well, I gather from all this that the answer is no or maybe, sometime in the future. If, as an RSP refugee, I end up with lightroom, I'll do my printing with Qimage.

[Don Lashier]

It's trivial unless you consider that to export a file in any color space, it's handy to be able to soft proof it first (otherwise, all kinds of surprises).
But LR lets you print with any profile so there's the similar limitation of no softproof. Also for some of us printing to inkjets with good profiles from aRGB there are rarely any surprises. RSP, C1, and (I believe) Bibble all permit conversion on save and have no softproof and no one has every complained. Sure it would be nice but certainly not reason to leave a fundamental option out of a program of the class that LR claims to be? Perhaps this is actually an alpha?

- DL

[Dierk Haasis]

Print-to-file has nothing to do with drivers.

No, print-to-file does need a print driver. Because what you originally have done with this command is creating a print file which can be taken from one computer to another - say, from your office comp to a printing house -, fed into this one and print without the original application being on the comp.

Creating a JPEG or TIFF or even a FinePrint printing file is actually Exporting or Saving as ... with - in the case of QImage - filters and all applied. You still ned some image processing application, like IrfanView, to print it. Actually IV wouldn't do because it is not colour managed.

The last point shows that there is a huge and still applicable difference between a print file and an exported file; it's not just old DOS geekery-gee.

[Don Lashier]

No, print-to-file does need a print driver. Because what you originally have done with this command is creating a print file which can be taken from one computer to another - say, from your office comp to a printing house -, fed into this one and print without the original application being on the comp.


Well, there's obviously two ways of doing this and the two have become a bit confused in this thread because of imprecise use of terminology.

- a) If you're sending the file off to a printing service to be printed on a lightjet, fuji, or whatever, you want to output a file converted to the service supplied profile, but simply a jpg file or tiff in the printer colorspace. You likely don't even have a driver for the target printer installed on your computer.

-b) if you're going to send the file to another computer with a printer attached that you have the driver installed for on your computer, but the "other" computer doesn't have the app (eg PS) installed to load and output the image file, then you want to "print to file" using the appropriate driver so that you can simply ship the file to the other computer and then print.

The first option is probably the more common requirement and it's surprising that LR doesn't support this.

- DL

[Winston Mitchell]

Exactly. I am amazed too.

[John Hollenberg]

I have become quite fond of working with Joseph Holmes Chrome Space Variants. Seems from the current implementation I would have to export as ProPhoto RGB, then do a conversion in Photoshop to Chrome Space to work with the variants. Not sure how much would be lost (if any) by doing the conversion in Photoshop, but just seems amazing that this wouldn't be allowed. Hopefully, this can be changed before final release.

--John

[Herb]

I have become quite fond of working with Joseph Holmes Chrome Space Variants. Seems from the current implementation I would have to export as ProPhoto RGB, then do a conversion in Photoshop to Chrome Space to work with the variants. Not sure how much would be lost (if any) by doing the conversion in Photoshop, but just seems amazing that this wouldn't be allowed. Hopefully, this can be changed before final release.

--John

Sources allegedly 'close to Adobe' have addressed this issue in the past when discussing ACR. Their responses ranged from stifling a yawn to outright contempt ('it's a chrome space - not relevant to DSLRs'). Don't hold your breath.

[Herb]

It's not clear if anyone cares that a virtual monopoly supplier closed down a small competitor which had potential to become a real one. Is everyone bought off with a 'free public beta'?

Perhaps folk feel that resistance to the software giants is futile. Despite a lot of hot air and frantic scuffling, Microsoft seems to have rendered the US Government impotent. One last ray of hope; the European Union seems determined to pursue it's fight with Gates. Latest moves:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5171126.stm

Maybe other would-be monopolizers will flash on their radar some day.

[John Hollenberg]

Sources allegedly 'close to Adobe' have addressed this issue in the past when discussing ACR. Their responses ranged from stifling a yawn to outright contempt ('it's a chrome space - not relevant to DSLRs')

Well, in general I would agree with their assessment. However, since the variants are only available for Chrome Space, and most of my images will fit inside Chrome Space without clipping (not all), this is often a good workflow for me. I will be having a look at LR with an open mind, but won't be surprised if I end up sticking with RSP until I switch from the Canon 5D.

--John

[Dierk Haasis]

It's not clear if anyone cares that a virtual monopoly supplier closed down a small competitor which had potential to become a real one. Is everyone bought off with a 'free public beta'?

With all undue respect, that's [expletive of choice]. Neither Adobe nor MS are monopolies not even with a qualifier like 'virtual'. Both have lots of competition for every single application they offer. pixmantec have done a superb developing and marketing job over the first year of their existence but have note come close to being a serious contender to Adobe - there's lots of other projects much more interesting from a business point (C1?!).

It's also not a free public beta offered to registered owners of a licence to RSP but the final [download] product; considering the varying guesses what LR will cost (anything from $ 199 to over $ 500) this would be quite a dent if pixmantec was serious competition.

What the EU is doing with MS has nothing to do with breaking a monopoly but all with socialiste economy planning. They are fighting MS over the inclusion of Windows Media Player into their OS. Now, if they hadn't put it in everybody would be griping that Windows does not even offer videao playing capabilities - which Apple does.

Let's see, is MS hindering others to serve users with a video player? Is MS WMP the first and foremost video player? Quicktime (plus iTunes), Real Player, Flash [sic] ... Why isn't anybody suing Apple about their obvious closing off of competitors, not only for their comps and OS but also for the iPod?

Never was a fan of MS [and Adobe] bashers but lately they [the bashers] have become a real nuisance.

[Don Lashier]

Neither Adobe nor MS are monopolies not even with a qualifier like 'virtual'. Both have lots of competition for every single application they offer
Not wishing this thread to deteriorate into a into a "bashing" thread, nevertheless I'll offer my comments. Excluding open source options, MS has a virtual monopoly on OS and office applications and is now targeting imaging and web dev/middleware. This has killed off superior options in WP, SS, email clients, etc. I would not have a problem with this except that the dominance has been gained thru viscious and perhaps illegal tactics rather than providing a superior product. I for one am glad that Adobe is strengthening its position in imaging and webdev thru aquisitions like Macromedia/CF and Pixmantec so that it can provide a strong alternative to MS at least in these areas. Once MS dominants a market it tends to get neglected, like Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. If it weren't for the re-emergence of NS in the form of FF do you really thing that MS would be trying to get its act together with IE7?

- DL

[scott kirkpatrick]

All true. I saw the Windows 3.1 vs OS2 war from the inside and it involved some pretty low blows. Hard to sympathize with either side, though. I don't think service to the customer was the goal of either party.

But taking, working on, and looking at pictures is a far more interesting subject. Back! Back!

scott

[Michael Tapes]

Thread Locked as its Subject no longer applies to the vast topics being discussed. Please open new threads for each topic.