Don, I think I read what you write more carefully than you write it.
I wrote:
">Your second sentence would be reasonable except that
you categorically state that a small .jpg is about all VS is good for.
No, it's simply your opinion. The end judgment is for the user to
make. Based on my needs I came to an opposite conclusion. How can
contradictory facts both be true? Answer is... because they're not
facts, they are opinions!
On not "reading into things", if you don't look at the context and
subtext of what's written you miss the meaning. I'd encourage you to
pay closer attention to this when you write- it will make you more
careful with your choice of words. You don't strike me as the
superficial sort- why read in a superficial way?
Where does your statement say that Vuescan *may* be too buggy
unreliable for serious scans but that you should test it to see if it meets your needs?
In the very *NEXT* sentence in the *SAME* paragraph:
--- start ---
On the other hand, if you don't care for quality it may be acceptable in which case find a version with
least bugs and stick with it. Avoid upgrading automatically and let others debug the most blatant bugs >first.
Problem 1: the quotes you're making about trying VS aren't even from
this thread, which is the point. It's unreasonable to assume everyone
has read every related post you've ever made.
Problem 2: "Seriously, unless your requirements are really low, Vuescan
is far too buggy and unreliable." and "if you don't care for quality
it may be acceptable"
These are not factual statements, they're opinons, which you are
entitled to. They are an interpretation based on "facts" you've put
together from reading this forum. What you mean by low requirements
is unclear, but I disagree with the blanket assertion that VS isn't
usable for anything but web jpgs. I use it happily for large prints as
do others. We already had this discussion elsewhere and I don't feel
like searching for a reference.
VS may not meet your personal standards for some reason, but it does
for others who care about their scans. If you just put your statement
out there couched as an opinion like "VS is buggy and reliable and I
wouldn't use it for anything but web scans," I thinks that's fine.
However, when you make statements which sound absolute I will chime in
to disagree.
I don't disagree that VS is buggy and unreliable, and the bugs are
well-documented. With that said, the bugs *may or may not* affect
print quality- I've tested the version I'm using enough to know it
works correctly (for most things).
"There is also a huge difference between thorough objective testing and
casual subjective "evaluation". "
I disagree with the usefulness of this approach since with scanning you
have a *relative* choice between hardware/software combo x and combo y.
The combo which gives you the better relative result for your intended
purpose is the better tool for the job. Absolute benchmarks can
illuminate the differences, but at the end of the day, it's still X and
Y. If neither combo meets your specifications then it's time to
replace the hardware and start testing software to go with it.
I have plenty of respect for Bart's opinions and learned a lot from his
posts. Bart's conclusion seems to be that VS isn't adequate for his
needs and there is better software available for him to use. VS's
problems with that particular scanner are well-documented.
Question: how do you know Bart's experience with VS on a Minolta
translates to all other scanner hardware? If there's one thing I've
learned with VS, it's that what works on one scanner may not work on
another (how many FS4000US-specific bugs have I gone through?)
As far as disparaging other people on the forum goes, what do you think
this is?
Don wrote:
"So, can you come up with a *single* quote where I say *anything* (let
alone disparaging!) about other people's *opinion* (not factoids!)?
You guessed it, any quote *in context*, please!"
Too easy.
"On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:17:12 +1100, Bruce Graham
usually disagree with Don's conclusions but his analogy of the parachute
might be accurate this time. I personally prefer to fly most times
without my calibration parachute.
In which case, Vuescan is not only perfect for you, but you deserve
it! ;o)
On a serious note, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. If
one doesn't care for quality (e.g. doesn't wait for the lamp to
stabilize and then calibrate) then even Vuescan will do.
The only reason such a neutral, matter-of-fact statement makes some
Vuescan users explode with blind rage is because they have that huge
chip on their shoulder. The ones that don't, simply admit they don't
care for quality, shrug, and continue using it."
I took the "you deserve it" quip as intended to be humorous. Blind
rage/chip on shoulder/ don't care for quality- all of this is your
insulting subjective characterization of VS users. No, you're not
insulting their opinions, you're insulting them directly. Much better.
My conclusion based on your statement: VS users are either irrational
(have an irrational emotional attachment to a software program?) or
incompetant (unable to see the program they are using isn't adequate
for their purposes). Do you fail to see how this is disparaging?
Finally, why do you think your second hand quotations from internet
forums are any more valuable than first hand experience, or "factoids"
in your parlance. Because I am reporting my direct experience and not
recycling dated bug reports from users with different levels of
knowledge, my reports are the less reliable? Bizarre. If I quoted
myself, would that make you feel better? Is it not a fact unless it's
quoted?
But at