Software is overpriced anyway
hanover
Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
programs. If it wasn't for generous friends and a little creative piracy,
I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
capabilities of Photoshop (among others). I buy the programs I find
useful.
The concept of copyright is not keeping up with technology anyway; there's
bound to be some gray areas until things settle -- those of you who're
getting bent out of shape over a few unlicensed copies of programs in the
hands of a few struggling bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax.
Consider them demos that will encourage future investment.
--
hanover
Gene A. Townsend
han...@fist.net (hanover) wrote:
>--
>hanover
I may be wrong, because I'm new to this newsgroup, but I think you've
missed the point entirely. You can certainly do as you choose.
However, these discussions of illegal copies do not belong in a
newsgroup where the majority have purchased the product. If you
wonder why nobody answers your questions, that is the reason.
If I choose to not answer a question of yours, or someone elses, when
I know the answer is on page 11 of the manual, then that's my right.
I would like to encourage others who own legal copies of Photoshop to
do exactly the same. Ignore these boring threads that have nothing to
do with using legal photoshop copies, which is why we're all here.
People also have the "right" to flame you if they feel like it, too.
It's life.
Cheers,
Gene A. Townsend
Joseph P. Befumo
This really is a tough subject to approach without sounding like either a
preacher or a pirate. It's difficult for people to understand why they can
buy an operating system like Win 95 for a hundred bucks or less while a
package like Photoshop sets them back closer to a grand. The thing is,
even if Adobe chose to sell Photoshop for $99, the mass market would
probably not have the need or the wit to use it, so Adobe would never be
able to attain the sheer numbers that Microsoft can. It's just a question
of numbers. My company just bought a 25-seat licence for SHL Transform (a
methodology deployment package, including content) for $160k, and
considered it a bargain. I daresay Transform is not a package that would
be of much use to 99% of the public. I'm currently developing a
manufacturing scheduling package for a company & it's going to cost them
$75k. That's because I'm going to sell exactly 1 copy. If I had a market
of 1000, I could do the same work and charge only $75.00. However, if the
market was 100,000, and I still tried to charge $75k/copy, nobody would buy
it, and someone else would probably develop a popular version that would
put me out of business.
Most of the people who use Photoshop are professionals who are generating
some kind of income by using it. It's a powerful package and I consider it
well worth the price that Adobe charges for it. If nobody payed, Adobe
would go belly-up, and all the folks who bitch about the price would just
have to write their own software. Try writing a package like that & then
tell us what YOU would charge for it.
Federico Mena
> Well there's is always JASC Paintshop pro.. it is getting better with
> every upgrade I'm seriously considering dumping photoshop and going
> with them...the price is right...then maybe Adobe will probably buy
> them out like they did Adlus Photostyler.
Have you checked The GIMP? It's free software under the GNU license.
http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~gimp
http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~federico/gimp
Quartic
Hideaki Kawahara
han...@fist.net (hanover) wrote:
>Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
>programs. If it wasn't for generous friends and a little creative piracy,
>I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
>capabilities of Photoshop (among others). I buy the programs I find
>useful.
>--
>hanover
Yep!
Most car is outrageously overpriced too, particularly the Europian
imports. If it wasn't for a little creative auto theft,
I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
capabilities of Ferrari or Rolls-Roys.
Hugh, Free PS plug-ins (Mac) on <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kawahara/>
Charles Blaquière
hanover wrote:
>
> Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
> programs. If it wasn't for generous friends and a little creative piracy,
> I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
> capabilities of Photoshop (among others). I buy the programs I find
> useful.
> bound to be some gray areas until things settle -- those of you who're
> getting bent out of shape over a few unlicensed copies of programs in the
> hands of a few struggling bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax.
> Consider them demos that will encourage future investment.
Most hardware is outrageously overpriced, particularly the 21" monitors
and all-purpose scanner/printer/fax machines. If it wasn't for generous
friends and a little creative robbery, I never would have had the
opportunity to explore all the incredible capabilities of the HP ScanJet
4c (among others). I buy the peripherals I find useful (even though I've
already stolen the same item, really I do).
Those of you who're getting bent out of shape over a few stolen scanners
and printers in the hands of a few struggling
bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax. Even though we can't (or
won't) pay for the expensive tools you've bought, we want to be able to
do the same level of work you do.
Icon
> Have you checked The GIMP? It's free software under the GNU license.
>
> http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~gimp
> http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~federico/gimp
I went a viewed the top web site listing. It looks pretty good except it
doesn't appear to be available for Win95 yet. I'll just have to try and
keep tabs to see if one becomes available. Nice program potential, however.
Icon
Simon Windmill
> If I choose to not answer a question of yours, or someone elses, when
> I know the answer is on page 11 of the manual, then that's my right.
>
> I would like to encourage others who own legal copies of Photoshop to
> do exactly the same.
Good point, just one thing tho - my copy is completely legal yet I have no
manual; PS came with the scanner. I don't mind people saying "it's in the
manual", but I would mind people saying "it's in the manual, you
scum-sucking pirate" =*)
Si.
--
======================================================================
windmill fraser multimedia - http://www.wfmm.com/
Tech: si...@wfmm.com Business: a...@wfmm.com General: off...@wfmm.com
======================================================================
Andy Pearlman
In article <3283B6...@io.org>, Charles =?iso-8859-1?Q?Blaqui=E8re?=
That's true to a certain extent - but a few points:
Ignoring all costs of programming the damn thing, the actual physical
costs for the most part are extremely similar - i.e. if packaging the set
of disks with a manual is say $15, anything that you make above that is
revenue. So, if you sell 1 million copies at $115, that's the same as if
you sell 100,000 copies at $1015. That's essentially the marketing
strategy of Macromedia currently - for the cost of Illustrator, you can
pick up Freehand, Fontographer, xRes, and Extreme 3D. And then you can
crossgrade to Illustrator for less than half price. There are
occasionally fixed royalty issues(such as paying Unisys for GIF, as an
example), but they're still not that high.
That's not true at all for scanners or 21" monitors which have supply
costs, shipping, storage, etc which have to be paid for in each item.
High quality optics, stable mechanisms, cables, lights are not cheap.
Also, the amount of time and effort needed to use a 21" monitor or scanner
to its fullest potential is more an effort that is independent of the
actual item. Once you learn how to use a monitor or scanner, you pretty
much know 'em all. There might be some slight differences, but those are
in the programming.
On the other hand, learning certain graphics programs requires enormous
amounts of effort. Now, say you know absolutely nothing about graphics
programs and want to learn. So to buy Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark
would cost roughly $1500. Most people can't afford that experiment. But,
if they pirate them, they can try it out. Or let's say you want to buy
that piece of software for your job, but you have no idea if it really
works in your job environment. Live Picture, when it was $4000 and
dongled, was a marketing nightmare - no one was trying it, hence no one
was buying it.
Now the important question really is for the software companies(and
believe me, they do take this into account - some of them view the
factories in China pumping out CDs as a possibility of getting a
distribution network)
"Will I sell more software total for more money if I allow for limited piracy?"
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman-art http://www.inet-images.com/gallery/pearlman_a.html apea...@mail.idt.net
"What tip do you have to leave after staying seven years in a restaurant?"
Dianne
In article <01bbcddb$5e9e1190$302148ce@wfmalgona>, you say...
>Good point, just one thing tho - my copy is completely legal yet I have no
>manual; PS came with the scanner. I don't mind people saying "it's in the
>manual", but I would mind people saying "it's in the manual, you
>scum-sucking pirate" =*)
>
>Si.
Si, I know what you mean. I have PhotoStyler, Gallery Effects, KPT, Altimira
Composer and HSC Digital Morph. All perfectly legal. I still have the registration
cards here to prove it. BUT, I did not get one manual for any of them. That's
probably why I put them away and didn't look at them. I just brought them all out
again. I finally have a "clue"! :)
Dianne
Calvin Cooper
_ hanover wrote:
_ >
_ > Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
_ > programs. If it wasn't for generous friends and a little creative piracy,
_ > I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
_ > capabilities of Photoshop (among others). I buy the programs I find
_ > useful.
_ > The concept of copyright is not keeping up with technology anyway; there's
_ > bound to be some gray areas until things settle -- those of you who're
_ > getting bent out of shape over a few unlicensed copies of programs in the
_ > hands of a few struggling bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax.
_ > Consider them demos that will encourage future investment.
_
_ Most hardware is outrageously overpriced, particularly the 21" monitors
_ and all-purpose scanner/printer/fax machines. If it wasn't for generous
_ friends and a little creative robbery, I never would have had the
_ opportunity to explore all the incredible capabilities of the HP ScanJet
_ 4c (among others). I buy the peripherals I find useful (even though I've
_ already stolen the same item, really I do).
_
_ Those of you who're getting bent out of shape over a few stolen scanners
_ and printers in the hands of a few struggling
_ bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax. Even though we can't (or
_ won't) pay for the expensive tools you've bought, we want to be able to
_ do the same level of work you do.
Seems to me you're all set for a grand jury indictment :)
Look, if you want to be on the self-righteous side of the software
purchase vs. the software piracy debate, that's fine.
I pay for all software I use but I can't condemn someone for downloading
copies of software packages when I just had a friend of mine make me a
cassette tape of the new George Michael cd.
Just adding my 2 cents.
calvin
Bill Fuller
hanover wrote:
>
> Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
> The concept of copyright is not keeping up with technology anyway; there's
>
> hanover
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Hanover
Very well presented, and you may be right.
And I'd assume that you would have NO problem in the future, as a
struggling businesmen/artist/whoever, with others taking/using your
work/product/whatever without paying you for it.
Right?
Bill Fuller
Honolulu, Hawaii
WEHJ
Simon Windmill wrote:
>
> > If I choose to not answer a question of yours, or someone elses, when
> > I know the answer is on page 11 of the manual, then that's my right.
> >
> > I would like to encourage others who own legal copies of Photoshop to
> > do exactly the same.
>
> manual; PS came with the scanner. I don't mind people saying "it's in the
> manual", but I would mind people saying "it's in the manual, you
> scum-sucking pirate" =*)
>
> Si.
> ======================================================================
> windmill fraser multimedia - http://www.wfmm.com/
> Tech: si...@wfmm.com Business: a...@wfmm.com General: off...@wfmm.com
> ======================================================================
I was under the impression that Adobe does not "allow" Photoshop to be
sold or transferred without the manual being included. Is this not true
for scanner bundle packages (I got a manual with my PS that was bundled
with the scanner)? I haven't gotten manuals for some other stuff I got
bundled with certain purchases, however, which I generally find quite
annoying.
Winston
David E. Jones
The reason that software is overpriced is that people steal it. The companies who produce it *have* to make their money. They do it by charging those who actually buy their product outrageous amounts. This is the unfortunate state of affairs.
jon...@oadist3.csg.mot.com
--
David E. Jones
Motorola, Inc.
Cellular Subscriber Group
600 N. Highway 45, Room il93/dist
Nick Payne
hanover <han...@fist.net> wrote in article
<hanover-0711...@news.interport.net>...
> Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
> programs. If it wasn't for generous friends and a little creative piracy,
> I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
> capabilities of Photoshop (among others). I buy the programs I find
> useful.
> The concept of copyright is not keeping up with technology anyway;
there's
> bound to be some gray areas until things settle -- those of you who're
> getting bent out of shape over a few unlicensed copies of programs in the
> hands of a few struggling bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax.
> Consider them demos that will encourage future investment.
Should I feel the same way when you remove a hundred bucks from my wallet
because I have the money and you don't?
Nick
weepingwillow
On Thu, 07 Nov 1996 17:42:38 -0500, han...@fist.net (hanover) wrote:
>Most software is outrageously overpriced, particularly the graphics
>programs. If it wasn't for generous friends and a little creative piracy,
>I never would have had the opportunity to explore all the incredible
>capabilities of Photoshop (among others). I buy the programs I find
>useful.
>The concept of copyright is not keeping up with technology anyway; there's
>bound to be some gray areas until things settle -- those of you who're
>getting bent out of shape over a few unlicensed copies of programs in the
>hands of a few struggling bussinesmen/artists/whoever should relax.
>Consider them demos that will encourage future investment.
>
>--
>hanover
I could not agree more these high priced programs that might show this
silly computer to be actually usefull are way out of the price range
of the average family or individual. I personally do what you do I
have some of these but I still cannot justify the 595.00 street price
for the full version of photoshop. And not everyone is still at a
university where they can play with state owned computers and high end
software.
Daniel H Isaacs
Excerpts from netnews.comp.graphics.apps.photoshop: 10-Nov-96 Re:
Software is overpriced .. by weepin...@net.com
>... not everyone is still at a
>university where they can play with state owned computers and high end
>software.
Sure... I'm paying $20,000 a year to "play" with computers (which, on a
sidenote, are privately owned by a private university.)
------------------------------------------------------ooo0-(. .)-0ooo--------
Daniel | isa...@andrew.cmu.edu 862-2204 (_)|in
| http://isaacs.res.cmu.edu | concei
Isaacs | http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~isaacs |
vable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
david goerndt
> >hanover
> I could not agree more these high priced programs that might show this
> silly computer to be actually usefull are way out of the price range
> of the average family or individual. I personally do what you do I
> have some of these but I still cannot justify the 595.00 street price
> university where they can play with state owned computers and high end
> software.
Photoshop is a professional tool! If it cost 1595.00, it would still be
worth the price. The fact that it is out of reach of the average family
or individual is not an issue. If you want it you will find a way to buy
it.
--
"Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggy, until you can find a rock"
Joe Bob Briggs
Kym ap Rhys
Calvin Cooper wrote:
>
> Seems to me you're all set for a grand jury indictment :)
> Look, if you want to be on the self-righteous side of the software
> purchase vs. the software piracy debate, that's fine.
> I pay for all software I use but I can't condemn someone for downloading
> copies of software packages when I just had a friend of mine make me a
> cassette tape of the new George Michael cd.
> Just adding my 2 cents.
>
> calvin
Hi,
Isn't this all just a matter of degree? What your friend did to make you
the George Micheal tape was technically illegal - but then would you
have actually bought the CD? It's not as though you were going into
production making pirate Cds for sael, or evn making money out of the
single copy you have.
Some software vendors look more reasonably on the copying/pirating issue
- if you have a license to use on your work PC, you can also legally use
that license at home and on a portable (if you have one). This is
sensible you can't be using all three copies at once anyway!
While I would always condemn anyone making money out of pirate software,
I can't object to someone using a package they have legally at work on
their home machine, or to someone 'trying' out software before they buy
it - the idea of 'crippling' demos so the export or print features
doesn't work is useless - often these is the very feature I need to
test! If more manufacturers made time limited full working copies
available this would help.
We buy software sight unseen, without testing it in our environment -
where a large corporate might be able to afford a few 500 pound
mistakes, a small business can't - and so often a package is not
suitable (ie key bits don't actually work) for the job it was bought
for. All the time this situation goes on I am not surprised software is
pirated. Interestingly, Paintshop Pro has always supplied a fully
working demo version - and this company is still in business and writing
frequent, excellent upgrades - if they can afford to do this, it makes
you wonder about some of the others.... I would add that after using
Paintshop Pro 3 I recommended it to the large corporate I worked for
then and they promptly arranged for a site license! So try before buying
does work.
Regards
Kym ap Rhys
Marc Pawliger
In article <387mnwl...@sphinx.nuclecu.unam.mx>, fede...@sphinx.fciencias.unam.mx (Federico Mena) writes:
> > Well there's is always JASC Paintshop pro.. it is getting better with
> > every upgrade I'm seriously considering dumping photoshop and going
> > with them...the price is right...then maybe Adobe will probably buy
> > them out like they did Adlus Photostyler.
> Have you checked The GIMP? It's free software under the GNU license.
> http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~gimp
> http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~federico/gimp
The GIMP is doing everything right for a kick-butt freeware image editor
for Unix. I checked it out about six months ago and the most recent links
show it's made quite a bit of progress since then. It is by no means a
full-feature commercial app, but on the other hand - it's free and if it
doesn't do something you want you've got the source code, so add it! It's
trying to match Photoshop feature-for-feature and has succeeded in quite a
number of areas. It lacks polish, but as borne out by many a "development
by horde" project, I have faith they will clean up these rough edges as
time goes on. I think the key they latched onto early was one any
developer of plugin-supporting apps knows very well: "plugins set you
free". You leverage your development effort n-fold; plugin authors don't
have to write a scaffold to work within; everybody wins.
--marc
--
| Marc Pawliger pawl...@adobe.com 408.536.4918 |
| Adobe Systems Photoshop Wiseguy(tm) San Jose, CA |
Michael Zacherl, on the road
Hi Andy and all others here,
Andy Pearlman wrote:
> So to buy Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark
> would cost roughly $1500. Most people can't afford that experiment.
You mean each of them or all together?
Well, I'm looking for a good offer for PS/Win since a couple of times.
Here in Austria SW is even more overpriced. I was looking for PS in
Germany and had to find out that the price there is just a little better
(appr. $1500 just for PS).
Can somebody point me to a mailorder company to get PS for a reasonable
price? What's a good price for PS anyway?
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Zacherl, on the road
david goerndt wrote:
> Photoshop is a professional tool! If it cost 1595.00, it would still be
> worth the price. The fact that it is out of reach of the average family
> or individual is not an issue. If you want it you will find a way to buy
> it.
David, you name it! $1595.00 is the appr. price here in Europe and
experience tell's me that in the US the same pro-SW is much more
affordable than here ... just could not find a good place where to get
PS.
regs,
Michael
Raphael X. Steenbergen
>David, you name it! $1595.00 is the appr. price here in Europe and
>experience tell's me that in the US the same pro-SW is much more
>affordable than here ... just could not find a good place where to get
>PS.
Funny, I got the PS 3.04 Deluxe CD for Windows bundled with my scanner
for that price....
Any Windows user want it for a hundred bucks?
ehhh, let's see. Send me a pic that explains why you want it so badly
and the winner goes!
====================================
Raphael X. Steenbergen
No opinions have been expressed here, and certainly not that of the
company I'm working for :)
John Dowdell
> Andy Pearlman wrote:
> > So to buy Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark
> > would cost roughly $1500. Most people can't afford that experiment.
>
> Well, I'm looking for a good offer for PS/Win since a couple of times.
> Here in Austria SW is even more overpriced. I was looking for PS in
> Germany and had to find out that the price there is just a little better
> (appr. $1500 just for PS).
Excuse my mercenary bent here, but it's an act of kindness, I assure you:
The FreeHand Graphics Studio 7 offers FreeHand 7.0, Macromedia xRes 3.0,
Extreme 3D 2.0, and Fontographer 4.1, on both Mac and Win, for the low,
low price of... of... well, I don't know what it is in Austria, but I know
it's insanely low, that's all. <g>
FreeHand's better suited to graphics-intensive multi-page short documents,
instead of Quark's text-intensive long documents... you'll be giving up
that. Or if you're seeking to learn that particular triumvirate for a
particular job which requires them, then you can get non-saving demo
versions of almost all tools today, along with third-party books to earn
familiarity with them.
But if you're seeking to do productive, for-money work, and if the
pocketbook pinches, then it's hard to argue with the FreeHand Graphics
Studio 7... phenomenal toolset, and we're all very excited about it 'round
here.
jd
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dowdell || Public forums have first claim on
Macromedia Tech Support || support time -- I cannot sustainably
San Francisco CA || respond to private email, sorry.
Macromedia European User Conference and Exhibition
December 4-6 1996, Amsterdam, +44 1344 458600
(New Streaming Bitmaps in Shockwave... details at macromedia.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Kratz
7133...@cmpuserve.com (John Dowdell) wrote:
>
>FreeHand's better suited to graphics-intensive multi-page short documents,
>instead of Quark's text-intensive long documents... you'll be giving up
>that.
Uh....I always thought Quark was a page layout program. FreeHand is
an illustration program. Youre comparing apples and oranges here.
Jason
Keith Clark
OOps...I -am- a dummy. I just checked and Quicksilver is by Micografix.
Keith (going back to lurk mode in shame)
Keith Clark
John Dowdell wrote:
> Excuse my mercenary bent here, but it's an act of kindness, I assure you:
>
> The FreeHand Graphics Studio 7 offers FreeHand 7.0, Macromedia xRes 3.0,
> Extreme 3D 2.0, and Fontographer 4.1, on both Mac and Win, for the low,
> low price of... of... well, I don't know what it is in Austria, but I know
> it's insanely low, that's all. <g>
>
> instead of Quark's text-intensive long documents... you'll be giving up
> particular job which requires them, then you can get non-saving demo
> versions of almost all tools today, along with third-party books to earn
> familiarity with them.
>
> But if you're seeking to do productive, for-money work, and if the
> pocketbook pinches, then it's hard to argue with the FreeHand Graphics
> Studio 7... phenomenal toolset, and we're all very excited about it 'round
> here.
>
> jd
>
> .
> John Dowdell || Public forums have first claim on
> Macromedia Tech Support || support time -- I cannot sustainably
> San Francisco CA || respond to private email, sorry.
>
> Macromedia European User Conference and Exhibition
> December 4-6 1996, Amsterdam, +44 1344 458600
> (New Streaming Bitmaps in Shockwave... details at macromedia.com)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do like FH 5.x a lot...
Will the Win'95/NT version finally let us use the Illustrator plugings
that the Mac versions have been able to use for a long time now??
And another thing. ;> I'm still kind of miffed at the way the ball got
dropped when Macromedia started bundling the Vector Effects plugins with
the Windows version of 5.x. I had bought my (personal) copy probably
within 30 days of the press release, yet I got nothing but the old
runaround treatment from Macromedia and HSC/Meta Tools when I tried to
find out how or if I could get them too. I'll be happy to call someone
in sales and provide my serial number to back up what I've said here if
you can give me the name and phone number of a -manager-, that won't
give me a runaround...
And since w're talking about a lack of responsiveness on Macromedia's
part, when I downloaded the "Quicksilver" plugin and it didn't work, I
tried to file a bug report but that's so incredibly difficult to figure
out how to do properly, and I got a response from some person that just
basically said "you sent it to the wrong address you dummy"...I would
have thought they could have at least said "you sent it to the wrong
address but we passed it on"...
Keith
(my opinions, not Intel's)
Christopher Horn
> Uh....I always thought Quark was a page layout program. FreeHand is
> an illustration program. Youre comparing apples and oranges here.
>
> Jason
not really...FH is, in my opinion, all the page layout that quark is,
and then some. i have used FH to produce a few books, and prefer its
layout abilities to those of quark. it is comparing a rotten apple to a
nice juicy one...but isnt this the photoshop ng?
...chris
John Dowdell
In article <328A1A...@ccm.jf.intel.com>, KeithX...@ccm.jf.intel.com
wrote:
> I do like FH 5.x a lot...
Cool, and I hope you have even more fun in the future, too. 8)
> Will the Win'95/NT version finally let us use the Illustrator plugings
> that the Mac versions have been able to use for a long time now??
I'm sorry, Keith, but there's no plugin architecture for Illustrator on
Windows. In other words, there aren't any ILL/Win plugins, so FH can't use
'em. If there were, then I'm sure the Altsys gang would want to
accommodate them in FreeHand, but because there aren't, they can't, sorry.
It's likely that there will be a new version of ILL/Win sometime in the
future, and I'd expect the FreeHand engineers to try to enable this, just
as FreeHand 7 reads and writes .AI files, multipage PDF, uses Photoshop
filters, and more. The more value you can get from your toolset, the
better.
> And another thing. ;> I'm still kind of miffed at the way the ball got
> dropped when Macromedia started bundling the Vector Effects plugins with
> the Windows version of 5.x. I had bought my (personal) copy probably
> within 30 days of the press release, yet I got nothing but the old
> runaround treatment from Macromedia and HSC/Meta Tools when I tried to
> find out how or if I could get them too. I'll be happy to call someone
> in sales and provide my serial number to back up what I've said here if
> you can give me the name and phone number of a -manager-, that won't
> give me a runaround...
Best person to expedite things would be Dan Koehn, chief Customer Service
Manager at Macromedia, at 800 470 7211 (tell him John D sent you, and that
the code phrase is "the mackerel flies at midnight"... he'll
understand.... ;)
I'm not sure what Dan could do in a case like this, because complimentary
backdates after an announcement are usually pretty clearly spelled out,
but if you wish to explore this then Dan's the best resource.
> And since w're talking about a lack of responsiveness on Macromedia's
> part, when I downloaded the "Quicksilver" plugin and it didn't work, I
> tried to file a bug report but that's so incredibly difficult to figure
> out how to do properly, and I got a response from some person that just
> basically said "you sent it to the wrong address you dummy"...I would
> have thought they could have at least said "you sent it to the wrong
> address but we passed it on"...
Uhm, the "QuickSilver" plugin to Netscape Navigator is from Micrografx....
If you mean the Shockwave plugin to Netscape Navigator, then that's right,
there's no one-on-one installation consultation on that free software, as
described in the licensing agreement you accepted. Installing Netscape
plugins is pretty straightforward these days, and the known edge
conditions are described in the ReadMe and technotes on the Macromedia and
Netscape websites.
(For instance, Win95 installs can get fouled with multiple versions of the
browser, or sometimes altered paths to the browser, or insufficient real
RAM or disk cache, and so on. These are the things that are listed in the
technotes, and they've dropped off in number as the installation has
become more automated over the last year... best course, in case it isn't
all automatically flawless, is just to retrace the steps and go through
the docs.)
If you sent email to the Macromedia webmaster, then yes, you'd get a FAQ
form letter back, as noted on the page that has that access point.
Webmaster one-on-one email is for things such as broken links, and
installation diagnostics are out of scope, and that's why that advice is
so prominent.
(Even in tech support we don't go "20 questions" on plugin installs,
because that takes time away from actual customers who paid for the
tools... they're the first priority. From the times that I *have* asked
question after question to figure out the difference on a distant machine,
it's uniformly turned out to be a docs issue anyway, so going right to the
source is definitely the best course.)
Hope you enjoy the new tools! 8)
Bobby Henderson
I don't know why the plug in makers won't go ahead and take advantage of
what Freehand offers on the PC in terms of an extensible architecture.
I suspect they're just plain lazy. Look how many Xtensions there are
for Quark on the Mac and how few there are on the PC. But you're right
in that nothing may be done until there is a new version of Illustrator
for Windows.
On the Vector Effects plug ins, some one from Metatools contacted me and
said they have a fully functional Windows 95/NT version of Vex. They
said it was originally supposed to ship when Freehand 7 was released.
However, that did not happen because of contractual obligations to
Adobe. This is probably why a lot of Freehand 5 for Windows users got
the runaround when trying to get their copy of Vector Effect ME, a
limited PC version reportedly written only for Macromedia.
The same representative from Metatools said that Adobe Illustrator 7 was
supposed to be finishing beta testing and go into Alpha sometime this
month. He guessed Illustrator 7 for both Windows and Macintosh would be
released around March. But I don't know myself. I've been hearing
release date stories for a new PC version of Illustrator for more than
two years, so you'll have to pardon me if I'm a little bit skeptical.
John Dowdell wrote:
>
> In article <328A1A...@ccm.jf.intel.com>, KeithX...@ccm.jf.intel.com
> wrote:
> >...
Jason Whittington
gra...@sover.net (Paul Patry) wrote:
>Go to www.jasc.com and download the shareware version of Paintshop Pro
>4.1. I does everything that photoshop does(except layers) for
>$70.00US. Take the other $1500.00 you save and treat yourself to a
>vacation here in Vermont.
>Patry Computer Graphics - gra...@sover.net
>802-524-7620-Voice/802-524-4478-Fax
>Color scanning - Canon Color Laser printing
>Hats,Tees, Mousepads, Mugs Etc.
Paint Shop Pro is a nice image viewer/format converter, but
it SUCKS for image manipulation. I've been meaning to say that
for awhile now... I feel better.
Jason Whittington
jawh...@locsys.com
John Maguire
>Paint Shop Pro is a nice image viewer/format converter, but
>it SUCKS for image manipulation. I've been meaning to say that
>for awhile now... I feel better.
I agree! Nothing like using the paintbrush tool (or any other tool,
for that matter) for 15 minutes and clicking `undo', huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John Maguire
Fort Defiance Software
Kennebunkport, Maine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Admin
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 02:40:54 GMT, gra...@sover.net (Paul Patry)
>>price? What's a good price for PS anyway?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Michael
>
You can get it through EggHead Software there phone number
is 1-800-344-4323
there web site
http://www.egghead.com
and disregard that guys post about Paintshop Pro, for any serious
Digital Artwork , you need the laryers option and PS is the best.
Peace.....................speed racer
Larry Jaques
juan...@cybertours.com (John Maguire) wrote:
>>Paint Shop Pro is a nice image viewer/format converter, but
>>it SUCKS for image manipulation. I've been meaning to say that
>>for awhile now... I feel better.
>I agree! Nothing like using the paintbrush tool (or any other tool,
>for that matter) for 15 minutes and clicking `undo', huh?
Hehehe. But we only do that ONCE, don't we? ;)
-=-=-=-=-backup sig, (Good one in shop for repair)-=-=-=-=-
http://www.diversify.com/~ljaques
Edward Mistarka
I bought Photoshop 3.05 from The Computer Place in Gaithersburg, md for
$119. The upgrade is free after a certain day in Sept. with a serial
#.(shipping only). All I got was a cd and a registration card. I got the
upgrade to Photoshop 4.0 in the mail a few days ago. I don't know if he
has anymore, all there was was the cd and a registration card in a white
envelope. I called Adobe first, and they said they would honor the
upgrade with a copy of the invoice and the serial # and they did. Found
the gy at one of those local computer shows.
Ed Mistarka
PS Pagemaker 6.0 was $99.