What's so special about this update (other than having been redesigned frm the ground up for OSX) is its option for ISO 3664/12646 support. You know the ISO standard for graphic arts viewing conditions? The way I understand it, a printer or studio having their Mac workstations calibrated and profiled through this tool could effectively claim "ISO conformance" in an ISO-900x quality control system. That's rather unique. (Roger Breton)

Software di creazione profili di LaCie fornito assieme al colorimetro Sequel Chroma (nel corso del 2003 verrà fornito un altro colorimetro). Funziona solo sui monitor LaCie. E' considerato molto costoso e non particolarmente preciso. Funziona solo su Mac OS (ma dovrebbe uscire una versione per Windows).

Then I bought a lacie with Blue Eye because it was supposedly "idiot proof". In working with it for a year I never got a satisfactory match. Then CDTobie suggested Optical & Spyder, in 15 minutes I had an almost perfect match. To add insult to injury, my Lacie's color gun controls can only be adjusted through the useless Blue Eye software. I spent $1000 on the lacie package, and now it has replaced my $100 monitor, that I use for tool palletes. (Rob Scheid)

The big difference is ease of use. Instead of having to use TWO applications and set things manually, the BlueEye system does all the settings for the user automatically without need to mess around with buttons.
Also, as to the issue of using hardware adjustments "digitally" (ala Sony Artisan, Barco, LaCie Blue), I was told by at least one manufacturer that using this method is more precise than setting hardware with buttons onscreen. Not only is it less work, apparently the internal adjustments are more precise (the term stepless was used). I have no way of knowing if this is true or not nor which display hardware ("Internal" or "external") is more precise.
But for a lot of users, the additional cost comes in knowing all they have to do is ask for an aim point and press one button. Repeatablity may be a factor too, I just don't know.

Last week I was at a seminar where there was a 22" LaCie (and a few 19" LaCie's). The smaller units were calibrated and profiled using Optical and a Spyder and the larger unit with the Blue Eye. We were NOT happy with the appearance of the Blue Eye calibrated colorimeter at all and ended up using the Spyder. Now all the displays were similar. I don't think the solution from LaCie (Blue eye) can hold a match to the combo of Optical and the Spyder! (Andrew Rodney)

Profiler Pro (ColorVision)

PrintOpen is good for doing CMYK output profile (it pretty much stinks at RGB) where ProfilerPro is the opposite (it can make decent CMYK output profiles when you jump through a lot of hoops but I don’t recommend it for people that are serious about making CMYK output profiles with any degree of control).

I recall doing a similar test with a group of photographers and educators.
We profiled a digital camera and a Fuji P3000 printer using both Praxisoft's CompassProfile and ProfileMaker Pro. Rather than measure the print of the Macbeth (captured by the profile camera). I simply placed both prints of the Macbeth under a light box. Nearly everyone picked the Praxisoft profiled print.
THEN I placed the actual Macbeth under the box next to the prints. To everyone's shock, the Macbeth print from the ProfileMaker Profile and the actual Macbeth target were almost dead on! Everyone liked the Praxisoft print because it had more saturation. But it wasn't accurate!