I can't address the reality of the ORF file "problem" since I know
nothing about it. But what makes you think that getting off the Adobe
Upgrade Treadmill leaves you any better off than jumping onto the Apple
Upgrade Treadmill? Sure looks to me like there is one. Check the
number of functional improvement releases since the original release in
Nov. 2005... 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.1. 2.1 was released in Mar. 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Aperture#Version_history>
Apple is giving you an upgrade "opportunity" on average about every 6
months. I assume that the point releases are free but the functional
releases are not. At least B&H charges $99.95 for an upgrade from 2.0
to 2.1.1. Looks to me like out of the frying pan into another frying
pan. And you get to pay more for the hardware to boot. Caution, Will
Robinson.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> One reason why I'm looking seriously at Mac is Aperture. Adobe Lightroom
> seems to have instantly become a standard, but I have two issues with it:
> 1. It does not render Olympus RAW files as well as other converters and 2.
> The Adobe Upgrade Treadmill. I want to "fire" Adobe from my life like I'm
> tempted to "fire" Windoze. Can you say "software rot"? Is Aperture a
> dead-end or do you feel that it is a reasonably safe direction to go?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|