On 4/11/2012 8:41 AM, scott wrote:
>> Kidding, but Adobe, among others, are *excellent* examples, imho, of
>> what is wrong with *not* having cheaper versions, for people that need
>> some of the functionality of a product, but can't afford the full blown
>> Lear Jet version... Some day, I hope to have Rhino, but short of having
>> it fall out of the sky into my lap, that isn't going to happen. I do
>> have Photoshop now, but.. god was that a hit in the wallet. I would have
>> been better off sticking with the "mostly" similar Paintshop Pro, or
>> even trying to get Gimp to make some sort of sense. lol
>
> I thought Adobe had their "elements" version of software to cater for
> the cheap consumer part of the market?
Well, Corel has both Painter and Paintshop Pro. Sadly, the latter they 
screwed, in some respects, with some features in older version becoming 
more problematic, and it not supporting the maximum color depth, and a 
few other things that kind of bug me. The reason? Because it competes 
with the product they already had. Sigh... Problem with the "cheaper" 
market is sometimes what you end up with is the software equivalent of 
the cheap $9 camera, which erases itself, if you forget to install the 
driver first, because it would cost $15, if they actually had it work 
right. I am not at all sure I trust those "cheaper" options to not be 
missing the things I do need, while having a load of them I never 
needed. lol

Post a reply to this message