Mac Power PC's - 4 years old and outdated
JohnQ
& going Intel-only with the next generation of the Creative Suite. That
is, CS4 is the last version that'll run on PowerPC-based Macs," John
Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop, announced on
his blog today.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22074/
Snit
With Apple moving to Intel, it makes sense for developers to focus on it.
Heck, Snow Leopard does not run on PPC...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
Snit
I can understand the frustration... heck, my PPC could not even get Leopard.
But time marches on, and I understand the move to Intel and the challenges
it produces. Heck, I am one of the few who misses Classic... bummed it did
not make it to Intel. But I understand why.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
Snit
I might have disagreed with something you said, but I doubt I bashed *you*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
Snit
Message is much more important than messenger.... though there are a few
folks in CMSA who have such a long history of hate-filled lying they can
just be written off... even by me, someone who gives people almost endless
chances.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
> JohnQ stated in post gNkhm.100260$8B7.32...@newsfe20.iad on 8/14/09 2:36 PM:
>
> > "It'll probably come as no surprise that Adobe is following Apple's lead
> > & going Intel-only with the next generation of the Creative Suite. That
> > is, CS4 is the last version that'll run on PowerPC-based Macs," John
> > Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop, announced on
> > his blog today.
> >http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22074/
>
> With Apple moving to Intel, it makes sense for developers to focus on it.
> Heck, Snow Leopard does not run on PPC...
Particularly considering that the Creative Suite is a relatively high-
end product for which its customers will upgrade hardware to exploit
productivity gains ... as per Geekbench 2, the slowest current MP
today is roughly 3x higher than the fastest G5 PM ever made...
...and this doesn't take into account that those 'fastest' G5 PM
buyers were knowingly buying into an obsoleting technology branch, to
max out their productivity in Creative Suite while Adobe rewrote/
recompiled. Thus, if you back it up to G5 purchases that were before
the Intel announcement, the slowest current MP becomes roughly 4x
faster...and the top of the heap is approaching 7x. YMMV as to if any
rational business would reject that relative nature of productivity
gain potential...
In the meantime, for one who claims to have 3 year old 'new' hardware
more than 3 years after all PPCs were discontinued, and puts "4 years
old" in the trolling subject line is unlikely to be one of those
rationals. :-)
-hh
Snit
0dd96ed7-54b7-461e...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 8/14/09
5:12 PM:
Do not get me wrong: I can see the frustration with how quickly tech gets
outdated. It can be expensive and maddening to keep up, if you want / need
to do so. My G4 is well outdated, but it still serves my family well. Even
my iMac is getting a little old (original aluminum). Some folks in COLA
told me not to get it - but now, about two years later, I am still very
happy with the machine. It will likely serve me for some time to come,
though I thinking of upgrading in one or two years so I do not get too
outdated and so my wife gets my hand-me-down machine and is not still using
the G4 when it is 10 years old.
Looking, her machine gets a GeekBench score of 368. Mine a 3199. The new
20" iMacs 3565... yeah, my machine is still in the ball park of the modern
models, but the G4 is pretty slow by today's standards!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
> -hh stated in post
> ... YMMV as to if any
> > rational business would reject that relative nature of productivity
> > gain potential...
>
> outdated.
True, but its a moot point for professional grade applications,
particularly since the big percentage changes were back in the 1990s
(25MHz to 33MHz = 33% increase): spending $5K for new hardware every
2 years to improve the productivity of an employee who costs six
figures is money well spent.
-hh
Snit
eda7e2c9-b61c-4a0f...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com on 8/14/09
6:48 PM:
For those cases, sure... but lots of people use Photoshop other than those
you talk about. Me, for example. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
Please clarify. Are you saying the PPC's are not outdated.
My machine was touted as a one year old leftover and discounted as such.
You should try to pace yourself. In your haste to belittle you seem
to blather more than make cohesive statements.
In your haste to attempt to prove your intellegence you post reams of
useless information in the mistaken assumption you will overwhelm us
with your bs.
With that in mind, *plonk*. Communicate with others of your kind.
Tim Adams
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
It's also quite probable that individuals running the older versions will need
very few, if any, of the new features of any new version. All of the packages in
the creative suite are quite feature complete and mature at this point, with
only (typically) minor tweeks being made to them.
Their old version will continue to run just fine and they can continue using it,
on their older hardware for years to come.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
JohnQ
> In article <eda7e2c9-b61c-4a0f...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> -hh stated in post
>>> ... YMMV as to if any
>>>> rational business would reject that relative nature of productivity
>>>> gain potential...
>>> Do not get me wrong: I can see the frustration with how quickly tech gets
>>> outdated.
>> True, but its a moot point for professional grade applications,
>> particularly since the big percentage changes were back in the 1990s
>> (25MHz to 33MHz = 33% increase): spending $5K for new hardware every
>> 2 years to improve the productivity of an employee who costs six
>> figures is money well spent.
>>
>
>
> It's also quite probable that individuals running the older versions will need
> very few, if any, of the new features of any new version. All of the packages in
> the creative suite are quite feature complete and mature at this point, with
> only (typically) minor tweeks being made to them.
>
> Their old version will continue to run just fine and they can continue using it,
> on their older hardware for years to come.
>
You are quite the visionary. You seem to know exactly what users will or
will not use. I only wish I had such a marketable gift.
You're involvement of Snit in your every post seems unhealthy.
Snit
I know *I* use a number of the features in the CS4 suite that were not in
the CS3 suite. Heck, right now I am in the middle of completely re-working
my Dreamweaver class because the old material was for CS3... I had "tacked
on" CS4 material, but for the upcoming semester I am moving to CS4 only.
Heck, just off the top of my head, from Dreamweaver, some things that
benefit myself and my students:
* No more .style silliness (autogenerated styles). Thank goodness!
* Related files
* Spry HTML Data sets
* In Context editing
That does not count the new UI and the bug fixes / clean up of some poorly
done stuff. Big difference.
For Photoshop:
* Smooth Zooming and rotating
* Content aware scaling (very cool)
* Better integration with Dreamweaver
* Better dodge and burn
* Color sample from all layers (big bonus!)
I am sure, for both programs, there is more. Oh, and for Dreamweaver the
program is just a *lot* snappier on OS X.
> You're involvement of Snit in your every post seems unhealthy.
He and his "buddy" are obsessed. I get why Carroll is... even if his
reasoning is not sane... but Adams... I just do not get. A deal with
Carroll to co-troll with him? The two of them and Wally *never* disagree or
call each other on their trolling, no matter how over-the-top insane it is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> JohnQ stated in post Unphm.95698$BP6.69...@newsfe24.iad on 8/14/09 7:50 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tim Adams wrote:
> >> In article
Poor Snit;)
Fact: Anyone who disagrees with the proven fact that you are a
disingenuous, lying POS is a liar.
I suggest you quit whining about this reality that you created.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > ...and this doesn't take into account that those 'fastest' G5 PM
> > buyers were knowingly buying into an obsoleting technology branch, to
> > max out their productivity in Creative Suite while Adobe rewrote/
> > recompiled. Thus, if you back it up to G5 purchases that were before
> > the Intel announcement, the slowest current MP becomes roughly 4x
> > faster...and the top of the heap is approaching 7x. YMMV as to if any
> > rational business would reject that relative nature of productivity
> > gain potential...
>
> > In the meantime, for one who claims to have 3 year old 'new' hardware
> > more than 3 years after all PPCs were discontinued, and puts "4 years
> > old" in the trolling subject line is unlikely to be one of those
> > rationals. :-)
>
> My machine was touted as a one year old leftover and discounted as such.
Which (if true) simply means that you were lying when you previously
characterized it as "New".
> With that in mind, *plonk*.
That's IIRC the second time that you've claimed to have killfiled me,
and thus, is a manifestation of yet another lie from you.
Golly, it really sucks to be you and not be able to reply now :-)
-hh
-hh
> ..
> > Tim Adams wrote:
> >> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>> [technology marches on]
> >>> True, but its a moot point for professional grade applications, particularly
> >>> since the big percentage changes were back in the 1990s (25MHz to 33MHz =
> >>> 33% increase): spending $5K for new hardware every 2 years to improve the
> >>> productivity of an employee who costs six figures is money well spent.
>
> >> It's also quite probable that individuals running the older versions will
> >> need very few, if any, of the new features of any new version. All of the
> >> packages in the creative suite are quite feature complete and mature at this
> >> point, with only (typically) minor tweeks being made to them.
>
> >> Their old version will continue to run just fine and they can continue using
> >> it, on their older hardware for years to come.
>
> the CS3 suite. Heck, right now I am in the middle of completely re-working
For a teaching class = employment. As such, the upgrade costs are a
deductible business expense.
> Heck, just off the top of my head, from Dreamweaver, some things that
> benefit myself and my students:
>
> * No more .style silliness (autogenerated styles). Thank goodness!
> * Related files
> * Spry HTML Data sets
> * In Context editing
>
> That does not count the new UI and the bug fixes / clean up of some poorly
> done stuff. Big difference.
Again, since Dreamweaver is more typically a tool typically not used
by a hobbyist for his personal website, but is used by businesses,
these are 'productivity enhancers' that will have a clear ROI for
justifying upgrade costs.
> For Photoshop:
> * Smooth Zooming and rotating
> * Content aware scaling (very cool)
> * Better integration with Dreamweaver
> * Better dodge and burn
> * Color sample from all layers (big bonus!)
I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
workflows. It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
supported by default.
> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
perceived.
-hh
Snit
229a7604-aa1e-4379...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 8/15/09
4:49 AM:
...
>>>> It's also quite probable that individuals running the older versions will
>>>> need very few, if any, of the new features of any new version. All of the
>>>> packages in the creative suite are quite feature complete and mature at
>>>> this point, with only (typically) minor tweeks being made to them.
>>>>
>>>> Their old version will continue to run just fine and they can continue
>>>> using it, on their older hardware for years to come.
>>
>> I know *I* use a number of the features in the CS4 suite that were not in
>> the CS3 suite.�Heck, right now I am in the middle of completely re-working
>> my Dreamweaver class...
>
> For a teaching class = employment. As such, the upgrade costs are a
> deductible business expense.
>
>> Heck, just off the top of my head, from Dreamweaver, some things that
>> benefit myself and my students:
>>
>> * No more .style silliness (autogenerated styles). �Thank goodness!
>> * Related files
>> * Spry HTML Data sets
>> * In Context editing
>>
>> That does not count the new UI and the bug fixes / clean up of some poorly
>> done stuff. �Big difference.
>
> Again, since Dreamweaver is more typically a tool typically not used
> by a hobbyist for his personal website, but is used by businesses,
> these are 'productivity enhancers' that will have a clear ROI for
> justifying upgrade costs.
Lots of people use it for things such as quilting clubs and the like.
>> For Photoshop:
>> * Smooth Zooming and rotating
>> * Content aware scaling (very cool)
>> * Better integration with Dreamweaver
>> * Better dodge and burn
>> * Color sample from all layers (big bonus!)
>
> I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
> differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
> workflows. It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
> supported by default.
The smart select and selection refinement are pretty cool enhancements from
CS2. Also smart filters and, I believe, that is where vanishing point was
added.
>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more. �
>
> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
> perceived.
And now 3D images as well. Photoshop does a *lot*... and it does it better
and better with each release. For the most part. They do also remove
features, such as slice sets... I miss those.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
> -hh stated in post
> eda7e2c9-b61c-4a0f...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com on 8/14/09
> 6:48 PM:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> -hh stated in post
>>> ... YMMV as to if any
>>>> rational business would reject that relative nature of productivity
>>>> gain potential...
>>> Do not get me wrong: I can see the frustration with how quickly tech gets
>>> outdated.
>> True, but its a moot point for professional grade applications,
>> particularly since the big percentage changes were back in the 1990s
>> (25MHz to 33MHz = 33% increase): spending $5K for new hardware every
>> 2 years to improve the productivity of an employee who costs six
>> figures is money well spent.
>
> For those cases, sure... but lots of people use Photoshop other than those
> you talk about. Me, for example. :)
>
>
I wouldn't bother trying to rationalize with a one tracker like him. He
is incapable of looking at an issue from more than one side. And even
that seems to tax what brain he might have left. The OP suggests that
the PPC's are outdated, and in fact they are. All his verbal diarrhea
can't change that fact.
His creative rationale that a new, unused leftover purchased three years
ago is not new is proof of his incompetence. But these senile old
duffers are incapable of wiping their own arses without direction.
That is why I don't stoop down to the level of his stupidity as well as
Murray and Adams. They are just too stupid to reason with.
JohnQ
you is it would be best to look at the past as gone and non existent.
The future can be a much brighter place without all this unnecessary
nonproductive recrimination.
JohnQ
needed by anyone else. This is a common method of trying to increase
one's self esteem.
Snit
I admit... I enjoy seeing how absurd people's "thought processes" are... Tim
Adams and Wally provide essentially unlimited amounts of "education" on how
wrong people can be. It is rather long ago, but Tim Adams' comments about
the tilde in a path still makes me snicker:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c7da6ed0a74f3d4b>.
Wally's more recent claims about utter gibberish, and Sandman's jumping in
to help him, are just amazing examples of absurdity. Wally's past claims
about subsets, even to the point of denying the existence of empty ones, was
a real eye-opener as to the level of ignorance adults can have. On the
other hand, with the both of them, their repulsive comments about how sex
and incest, to them, are "synonymous" or "identical" made me a little ill.
Really, that is just sick and bothersome.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> Poor Snit;)
>>
>> Fact: Anyone who disagrees with the proven fact that you are a
>> disingenuous, lying POS is a liar.
>>
>> I suggest you quit whining about this reality that you created.
>>
> You sound so bitter. Whatever the past history between the both of
> you is it would be best to look at the past as gone and non existent.
> The future can be a much brighter place without all this unnecessary
> nonproductive recrimination.
Exactly. Would love to see him let go of his past anger. Steve's whole
anger stems from an incident in 2004 so bothersome to him he now denies it
even happened. Just let it go and move on...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Tim Adams
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > ..
> > > Tim Adams wrote:
> > >> �ｿｽ-hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > >>> [technology marches on]
> > >>> True, but its a moot point for professional grade applications,
> > >>> particularly
> > >>> since the big percentage changes were back in the 1990s (25MHz to 33MHz
> > >>> =
> > >>> 33% increase): �ｿｽspending $5K for new hardware every 2 years to improve
> > >>> the
> > >>> productivity of an employee who costs six figures is money well spent.
> >
> > >> It's also quite probable that individuals running the older versions
> > >> will
> > >> need very few, if any, of the new features of any new version. All of
> > >> the
> > >> packages in the creative suite are quite feature complete and mature at
> > >> this
> > >> point, with only (typically) minor tweeks being made to them.
> >
> > >> Their old version will continue to run just fine and they can continue
> > >> using
> > >> it, on their older hardware for years to come.
> >
> > I know *I* use a number of the features in the CS4 suite that were not in
> > the CS3 suite.�ｿｽHeck, right now I am in the middle of completely re-working
> > my Dreamweaver class...
>
> For a teaching class = employment. As such, the upgrade costs are a
> deductible business expense.
>
>
>
>
> > Heck, just off the top of my head, from Dreamweaver, some things that
> > benefit myself and my students:
> >
> > * No more .style silliness (autogenerated styles). �ｿｽThank goodness!
> > * Related files
> > * Spry HTML Data sets
> > * In Context editing
> >
> > That does not count the new UI and the bug fixes / clean up of some poorly
> > done stuff. �ｿｽBig difference.
>
> Again, since Dreamweaver is more typically a tool typically not used
> by a hobbyist for his personal website, but is used by businesses,
> these are 'productivity enhancers' that will have a clear ROI for
> justifying upgrade costs.
>
>
> > For Photoshop:
> > * Smooth Zooming and rotating
> > * Content aware scaling (very cool)
> > * Better integration with Dreamweaver
> > * Better dodge and burn
> > * Color sample from all layers (big bonus!)
>
> I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
> differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
> workflows. It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
> supported by default.
>
>
> > I am sure, for both programs, there is more. �ｿｽ
>
> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
> perceived.
I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>
>
> -hh
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-4DF4FB.10...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
8/15/09 7:37 AM:
>>> Heck, just off the top of my head, from Dreamweaver, some things that
>>> benefit myself and my students:
>>>
>>> * No more .style silliness (autogenerated styles). �Thank goodness!
>>> * Related files
>>> * Spry HTML Data sets
>>> * In Context editing
>>>
>>> That does not count the new UI and the bug fixes / clean up of some poorly
>>> done stuff. �Big difference.
>>
>> Again, since Dreamweaver is more typically a tool typically not used
>> by a hobbyist for his personal website, but is used by businesses,
>> these are 'productivity enhancers' that will have a clear ROI for
>> justifying upgrade costs.
>>
>>
>>> For Photoshop:
>>> * Smooth Zooming and rotating
>>> * Content aware scaling (very cool)
>>> * Better integration with Dreamweaver
>>> * Better dodge and burn
>>> * Color sample from all layers (big bonus!)
>>
>> I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
>> differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
>> workflows. It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
>> supported by default.
>>
>>
>>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more. �
>>
>> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
>> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
>> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
>> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
>> perceived.
>
> I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
For some it is worth it. For some it is not. For some the 3D aspects will
be the turning point - neither you nor -hh showed any knowledge that such
tools even exist in Photoshop now.
For me the update was well worth it, though for some it might not have been.
So be it. I also do not have to pay full price... but many people do not.
For many people free or really cheap alternatives are enough. Heck, Gimp is
a very capable program... and would be sufficient for many. Or Photoshop
Elements if you prefer a similar UI to Photoshop. Use what works for you,
but do not assume others have the same needs. The new CS4 was a *big*
benefit to myself and my students... as I said, the lack of autogenerated
styles in Dreamweaver was a huge benefit for new users (and some not so
new).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
> In article <229a7604-aa1e-4379...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> Tim Adams wrote:
>>>>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [technology marches on]
>>>>>> True, but its a moot point for professional grade applications,
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> since the big percentage changes were back in the 1990s (25MHz to 33MHz
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> productivity of an employee who costs six figures is money well spent.
>>>>> It's also quite probable that individuals running the older versions
>>>>> will
>>>>> need very few, if any, of the new features of any new version. All of
>>>>> the
>>>>> packages in the creative suite are quite feature complete and mature at
>>>>> this
>>>>> point, with only (typically) minor tweeks being made to them.
>>>>> Their old version will continue to run just fine and they can continue
>>>>> using
>>>>> it, on their older hardware for years to come.
>>> I know *I* use a number of the features in the CS4 suite that were not in
>>> my Dreamweaver class...
>> For a teaching class = employment. As such, the upgrade costs are a
>> deductible business expense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Heck, just off the top of my head, from Dreamweaver, some things that
>>> benefit myself and my students:
>>>
>>> * Related files
>>> * Spry HTML Data sets
>>> * In Context editing
>>>
>>> That does not count the new UI and the bug fixes / clean up of some poorly
>> Again, since Dreamweaver is more typically a tool typically not used
>> by a hobbyist for his personal website, but is used by businesses,
>> these are 'productivity enhancers' that will have a clear ROI for
>> justifying upgrade costs.
>>
>>
>>> For Photoshop:
>>> * Smooth Zooming and rotating
>>> * Content aware scaling (very cool)
>>> * Better integration with Dreamweaver
>>> * Better dodge and burn
>>> * Color sample from all layers (big bonus!)
>> I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
>> differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
>> workflows. It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
>> supported by default.
>>
>>
>>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
>> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
>> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
>> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
>> perceived.
>
> I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>
Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
make you happy does it.
Snit
There are times when -hh does show some signs of thought. Times.
Keep in mind with Tim that he is very non-technical... so the differences
between CS2, CS3 and CS4 are likely not something he understands. For
example, Tim Adams has shown he does not (or did not) know what the tilde in
a path means (and could not understand when told)... and he once claimed a
non-powered USB hub can only support non-powered devices... and he has
shown he does not understand the symmetric property of equality - that if
one thing is identical to another then it is a reciprocal association.
Oh, and he has repeatedly said that to change his .sig he needs something
from me - he cannot figure out how to do it on his own.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
KDT
> Snit wrote:
> > JohnQ stated in post gNkhm.100260$8B7.32...@newsfe20.iad on 8/14/09 2:36 PM:
>
> >> "It'll probably come as no surprise that Adobe is following Apple's lead
> >> & going Intel-only with the next generation of the Creative Suite. That
> >> is, CS4 is the last version that'll run on PowerPC-based Macs," John
> >> Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop, announced on
> >> his blog today.
> >>http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22074/
>
> > With Apple moving to Intel, it makes sense for developers to focus on it.
> > Heck, Snow Leopard does not run on PPC...
>
> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
If you're paying $1500 for a piece of software. (Adobe Creative
Suite), I'm sure you can afford a $1000 iMac that is actually faster
than any PPC Mac that was ever made other than the Quad Core G5.
Steve Carroll
I was thinking the same thing about you
> Whatever the past history between the both of
> you is it would be best to look at the past as gone and non existent.
> The future can be a much brighter place without all this unnecessary
> nonproductive recrimination.
And any minute now you'll be practicing what you're preachin' ;)
Steve Carroll
> JohnQ stated in post gezhm.54837$sC1.41...@newsfe17.iad on 8/15/09 7:02 AM:
Poor Snit... laying in the bed he made and not liking it much. LOL!
Steve Carroll
> In article <4A86D2DA.8000...@aol.com>, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Tim Adams wrote:
>
> > >>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
> > >> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
> > >> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
> > >> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
> > >> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
> > >> perceived.
>
> > > I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>
> > Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
> > make you happy does it.
>
> poster say to justify such rudeness?
This guy is a long time troll who is currently shilling for Snit.
Ian Piper
> Snit wrote:
>> JohnQ stated in post gNkhm.100260$8B7....@newsfe20.iad on 8/14/09 2:36 PM:
>>
>>> "It'll probably come as no surprise that Adobe is following Apple's lead
>>> & going Intel-only with the next generation of the Creative Suite. That
>>> is, CS4 is the last version that'll run on PowerPC-based Macs," John
>>> Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop, announced on
>>> his blog today.
>>> http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22074/
>>
>> With Apple moving to Intel, it makes sense for developers to focus on it.
>> Heck, Snow Leopard does not run on PPC...
>>
>>
>
> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
Actually old thing, I don't think that is correct. I have a PowerBook
G4 that dates from early 2004 that runs Adobe CS perfectly. Your
machine is only outdated if you want to install the latest versions of
Adobe's software (and really, I am not persuaded about the need for
that - I am very happy with CS and will not be shelling out the
exorbitant (IMHO) upgrade costs any time soon.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Snit
fed89377-54e0-4026...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 8/15/09
11:12 AM:
I know *I* do not pay that much for CS software! Few people do!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
You seem to know a lot about my financial situation. Perhaps you are my
banker. FYI, I am not as well heeled as the rest of you here. I can't
afford to shell out an extra thousand bucks on an Apple whim.
JohnQ
Your needs differ from mine. Since I cannot afford to buy a new up to
date Mac I will use my old HP Windows machine for the task.
Snit
AM:
Depends on your needs and how you use the software. I know I am very happy
with the CS4 suite and enjoy the benefits it offers over the older versions.
When the CS5 suite comes out, I will almost surely get it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
You have piqued my interest. Exactly what did happen in 2004.
JohnQ
> In article <4A86D2DA...@aol.com>, JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim Adams wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
>>>> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
>>>> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
>>>> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
>>>> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
>>>> perceived.
>>> I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>>>
>> Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
>> make you happy does it.
>
>
> poster say to justify such rudeness?
In my short time here the Adams sock troll has gone out of his way at
every opportunity to provoke me. For no good reason I might add since I
don't know or would not want to know him. But there are a few bitter
individuals here who seem to do this on a regular basis to rationalize
their miserable existence.
Snit
No problem here... I say use what works for you. I use OS X, Windows, and
Linux. I have the Adobe CS4 suite for both OS X and Windows and think it is
excellent on both, though the built in color selector on OS X is a pretty
cool plus. Still, for the classes I teach I use the Windows version, partly
just to keep me using both but also because I run Windows in virtualization
and it is easier to get a smaller "screen" which works better for videos.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
No desire to go into details on an event that should be long dead, but I
made some comments about a famous person that Steve did not like. He tried
to defend the person, but when he failed he went to his game playing -
insisting that when I say someone is actually guilty of a crime they must be
found guilty in a court... something I never said the person was. I also
noted that I could not offer only strong evidence, not proof of the sort
found in a mathematical proof and Steve *still* pulls that out of context
and insists that a lack of proof is a a valid refutation (his oft repeated
argument from ignorance).
Even worse, though, in the midst of this debate (and, I think, starting a
bit before it), his girlfriend started obsessing over me. She lied about me
calling her, whined that I would not talk about family planning options with
her (she was furious when she found out my wife was pregnant), posted
incorrect information about me that she could have gotten only from the
*print* edition of my small town local paper, etc. She found in the local
paper from where my parents live that my mother had passed away... talked
about specifics of my classes that could only be found on the college
website where I work, asked me dozens of times how "incest" made me feel and
related that to a picture of me where I was shirtless and holding my
new-born daughter - as if that was somehow wrong, and - when I would not
bend to her will - made public accusations of me committing rape (a claim
Carroll has made many times). She used online tax records to find the names
of my neighbors and told me she was having them watch me. She also
threatened to make false accusations against me to the police - something I
took seriously enough to print out and take to the police. She was
contacted and stopped posting to CSMA for over 6 months... and even after
rarely posts. Thankfully. Carroll will come in and deny the above facts,
but I have a fully PDF that details this and is linked to the Google archive
to prove it all. Email me if you want a copy... though I will ask you not
to make it public being that she has long-ago backed off.
Anyway, she later dumped Steve... and Steve blamed me. He used to brag
about his 69 mile road trips to her house and even posted a Google map to
prove that was the distance. Just sickness. But also long ago. Steve
should let go of his anger and move on.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Yet you prove once again that it is you that can't think. You can't even set up
a kill filter.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
more mind reading michael? Dragging up shit you were proved a liar about all the
time claiming you want to let old arguments die and stay dead. But, since you
still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde in the path name to get to the
location where Apple's widgets are installed.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll proved michael (aka: snit) glasser to be an asshole so many times,
that snit lost his mind, or rather what little of it he had left after all his
drug use, and has been bitter ever since.
Tim Adams
wrote:
So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
Snit
8/15/09 1:19 PM:
...
>>> Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
>>> make you happy does it.
>>
>> There are times when -hh does show some signs of thought. Times.
>>
>> Keep in mind with Tim that he is very non-technical... so the differences
>> between CS2, CS3 and CS4 are likely not something he understands. For
>> example, Tim Adams has shown he does not (or did not) know what the tilde in
>> a path means (and could not understand when told)... and he once claimed a
>> non-powered USB hub can only support non-powered devices... and he has shown
>> he does not understand the symmetric property of equality - that if one thing
>> is identical to another then it is a reciprocal association.
>>
>> Oh, and he has repeatedly said that to change his .sig he needs something
>> from me - he cannot figure out how to do it on his own.
See how Tim just babbles, below:
> more mind reading michael? Dragging up shit you were proved a liar about all
> the time claiming you want to let old arguments die and stay dead. But, since
> you still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde in the path name to get to
> the location where Apple's widgets are installed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 1:25 PM:
> In article <4A870819...@aol.com>, JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> JohnQ stated in post gezhm.54837$sC1....@newsfe17.iad on 8/15/09 7:02 AM:
>>>
>>>>> Poor Snit;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact: Anyone who disagrees with the proven fact that you are a
>>>>> disingenuous, lying POS is a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you quit whining about this reality that you created.
>>>>>
>>>> You sound so bitter. Whatever the past history between the both of you is
>>>> it would be best to look at the past as gone and non existent. The future
>>>> can be a much brighter place without all this unnecessary nonproductive
>>>> recrimination.
>>>>
>>> Exactly. Would love to see him let go of his past anger. Steve's whole
>>> anger stems from an incident in 2004 so bothersome to him he now denies it
>>> even happened. Just let it go and move on...
>>
>> You have piqued my interest. Exactly what did happen in 2004.
>>
> Steve Carroll proved michael (aka: snit) glasser to be an asshole so many
> times, that snit lost his mind, or rather what little of it he had left after
> all his drug use, and has been bitter ever since.
Gee, see how you lash out.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
> In article <X2Ehm.67063$0z7....@newsfe07.iad>, JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> High Priest wrote:
>>> In article <4A86D2DA...@aol.com>, JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Adams wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
>>>>>> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
>>>>>> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
>>>>>> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
>>>>>> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
>>>>>> perceived.
>>>>> I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>>>>>
>>>> Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
>>>> make you happy does it.
>>>
>>> I'm just a passer-by but I have to ask...what the hell did the earlier
>>> poster say to justify such rudeness?
>> In my short time here the Adams sock troll has gone out of his way at
>> every opportunity to provoke me. For no good reason I might add since I
>> don't know or would not want to know him. But there are a few bitter
>> individuals here who seem to do this on a regular basis to rationalize
>> their miserable existence.
>
> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
>
In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
misinformation. You are also a sociopath as witnessed by you and your
socks persecution of Snit. My issue is that I'm ticked off that a
perfectly good almost new machine is incapable of running new software.
Why you seem to object so much to that fact seems markedly odd. But
most stupid people act exactly the way you do. Why don't you jump from
a high structure and make the world a better place.
Snit
8/15/09 1:26 PM:
> In article <X2Ehm.67063$0z7....@newsfe07.iad>, JohnQ
> <Johnqui...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> High Priest wrote:
>>> In article <4A86D2DA...@aol.com>, JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Adams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
>>>>>> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
>>>>>> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
>>>>>> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
>>>>>> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
>>>>>> perceived.
>>>>> I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>>>>>
>>>> Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
>>>> make you happy does it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just a passer-by but I have to ask...what the hell did the earlier
>>> poster say to justify such rudeness?
>>
>> In my short time here the Adams sock troll has gone out of his way at
>> every opportunity to provoke me. For no good reason I might add since I
>> don't know or would not want to know him. But there are a few bitter
>> individuals here who seem to do this on a regular basis to rationalize
>> their miserable existence.
>
> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
He just noted a reality you clearly did not like pointed out to you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> In my short time here the Adams sock troll has gone out of his way at every
>>> opportunity to provoke me. For no good reason I might add since I don't know
>>> or would not want to know him. But there are a few bitter individuals here
>>> who seem to do this on a regular basis to rationalize their miserable
>>> existence.
>>>
>> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
>>
>
> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
> misinformation.
Here is an example of that. I noted Tim Adams was wrong to say the
following things about the tilde meaning the hard drive:
-----
Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
-----
YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only. To bad in your reading, your
delusions took over.
-----
With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of
the widgets. With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library
there IS NO directory called widget UNLESS you've installed
the malware widget or another self installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that
widgets were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE
~ AS THE NAME OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library
-----
How does Tim react? A normal person would admit they were wrong and move
on. Tim Adams? He lashes out with lies about me:
-----
But, since you still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde
in the path name to get to the location where Apple's widgets
are installed.
-----
Tim, of course, *never* will produce a quote showing I currently believe
what he attributes to me, no less that I ever did. Tim Adams just made up a
dishonest story about me to obfuscate his own ignorance.
> You are also a sociopath as witnessed by you and your socks persecution of
> Snit. My issue is that I'm ticked off that a perfectly good almost new
> machine is incapable of running new software. Why you seem to object so much
> to that fact seems markedly odd. But most stupid people act exactly the way
> you do. Why don't you jump from a high structure and make the world a better
> place.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Hix
<fed89377-54e0-4026...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
KDT <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He seems to be under the delusion that suddenly what he has will quit
working.
If it was good enough to buy and use up 'til now, there's no rational
reason why it should suddenly be unusable just because Adobe's
announced they've got something coming up.
JohnQ
> In article
> <fed89377-54e0-4026...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> KDT <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 14, 5:55 pm, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> JohnQ stated in post gNkhm.100260$8B7.32...@newsfe20.iad on 8/14/09 2:36
>>>> PM:
>>>>> "It'll probably come as no surprise that Adobe is following Apple's lead
>>>>> & going Intel-only with the next generation of the Creative Suite. That
>>>>> is, CS4 is the last version that'll run on PowerPC-based Macs," John
>>>>> Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop, announced on
>>>>> his blog today.
>>>>> http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22074/
>>>> With Apple moving to Intel, it makes sense for developers to focus on it.
>>>> Heck, Snow Leopard does not run on PPC...
>>> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
>>> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
>> If you're paying $1500 for a piece of software. (Adobe Creative
>> Suite), I'm sure you can afford a $1000 iMac that is actually faster
>> than any PPC Mac that was ever made other than the Quad Core G5.
>
> He seems to be under the delusion that suddenly what he has will quit
> working.
No, I said the new Adobe wont run on my PPC. I'm surprised that you are
so off base with my simple and clear comment. The only ones suffering
delusions seem to be you and your socks.
> If it was good enough to buy and use up 'til now, there's no rational
> reason why it should suddenly be unusable just because Adobe's
> announced they've got something coming up.
I want the newest Adobe because I use Adobe on a daily basis for my
work. Do you run out and buy every new OS Apple puts out like so many
here. If so it is your prerogative just as it is my prerogative to buy
what I want/need.
Think thats clear enough for you to process. Seems you and your socks
have a huge issue with that heavens knows why.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-BB89F9.16...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/15/09 1:25 PM:
> > Steve Carroll proved Michael (aka Snit) Glasser to be an asshole so many
> > times, that snit lost his mind, or rather what little of it he had left
> > after all his drug use, and has been bitter ever since.
>
> Gee, see how you lash out?
Gee, see how you beg for attention?
Tim Adams
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
Yet I've been able to support my statement, unlike you. Keep on trolling.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Yes, I know I did.
Snit
8/15/09 6:13 PM:
Your reading comprehension problems are showing again. Clearly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 6:12 PM:
...
>>> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
>>>
>>
>> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
>> misinformation.
>
> Yet I've been able to support my statement, unlike you. Keep on trolling.
I would *love* see you try to support your recent claims! But you will
not... 100% predictable:
-----
But, since you still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde
in the path name to get to the location where Apple's widgets
are installed.
-----
true to form, michael glasser proves once again he can't use
a simple search engine.
-----
Steve Carroll proved michael (aka: snit) glasser to be an
asshole so many times, that snit lost his mind, or rather
what little of it he had left after all his drug use, and has
been bitter ever since.
-----
Since it is, of course, 100% predictable that you will not support those
clearly bizarre and delusional claims of yours, and likely will not even
try, the question becomes what tactic you will use to run. Just be boring
and snip? Insist you already have supported them but then "forget" to point
to any evidence? Say no support is needed since your co-trolls do not
disagree? Oh, the choices for you! The excitement of those who read your
drivel...
Just please make your response be amusing... not just cowardly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
-hh
>
> I want the newest Adobe because I use Adobe on a daily basis for my
> work. Do you run out and buy every new OS Apple puts out like so many
> here. If so it is your prerogative just as it is my prerogative to buy
> what I want/need.
>
> Think thats clear enough for you to process.
The newest Adobe is CS4 .. and its going to continue to be the newest
for the rest of this year and at least a good chunk of next.
CS4 runs just fine on PPCs. Problem solved.
-hh
Snit
fe720123-68ae-4134...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com on 8/15/09
6:39 PM:
I hope CS5 does not come out too soon - I am just getting my Dreamweaver CS4
material ready for this semester. For last Spring I added CS4 material to
the older CS3 material, and I will likely go that route again, but I want
this material to not get outdated too quickly!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Murray
> I hope CS5 does not come out too soon - I am just getting my Dreamweaver CS4
> material ready for this semester. For last Spring I added CS4 material to
> the older CS3 material, and I will likely go that route again, but I want
> this material to not get outdated too quickly!
Do you teach people typically who walk in the door with the latest and
greatest?
-hh
> JohnQ stated:
> > Snit wrote:
> >> -hh stated:
> >>> I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
> >>> differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
> >>> workflows. It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
> >>> supported by default.
>
> >> CS2. Also smart filters and, I believe, that is where vanishing point was
> >> added.
There were some refinements, to be sure. Afterall, I didn't say that
there weren't any improvements: just that the ones that you listed
weren't significant to me.
> >> And now 3D images as well.
True, but its a completely moot when using it for its originally
intended application of "PHOTOgraphs," which are overwhelmingly 2D.
> > In all probability Mr.hh cannot afford the new program....
>
> Sour grapes.
It certainly is by JohnnyQ, since I clearly said that I currently have
the latest Photoshop version (eg, CS4). Depending on JohnnyQ's needs,
my comment is merely that he may not necessarily be missing all that
much.
BTW, in regards to Dreamweaver being used by a quilting club, I don't
doubt it ... but that doesn't prove that it is the preferred tool for
personal use websites. The trend appears to have been towards "free"
services such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Photobucket, Google's
picasa, etc, etc, ... all of which create turnkey pages with no coding
required.
-hh
Snit
8997b63c-b670-4978...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com on 8/15/09
7:01 PM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> JohnQ stated:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> -hh stated:
>>>>> I jumped from CS2 to CS4 and didn't really notice these as huge
>>>>> differences, although that obviously depends upon one's individual
>>>>> workflows. �It was a bigger deal for me that TWAIN is no longer
>>>>> supported by default.
>>
>>>> The smart select and selection refinement are pretty cool enhancements from
>>>> CS2. �Also smart filters and, I believe, that is where vanishing point was
>>>> added.
>
> There were some refinements, to be sure. Afterall, I didn't say that
> there weren't any improvements: just that the ones that you listed
> weren't significant to me.
If the topic was you, of course, then no doubt you are the expert in what is
important to you. No argument here. But the topic was about Macs getting
outdated and not being able to run the newest software after a relatively
short time. And, well, with the loss of PPC support in CS5, the PPC Macs
will no longer be supported.
I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
64 bit they have a lot on their plate. Might as well move forward as they
make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
would feel a bit slighted.
>>>> And now 3D images as well. �
>
> True, but its a completely moot when using it for its originally
> intended application of "PHOTOgraphs," which are overwhelmingly 2D.
One: the 3D features can benefit photographic manipulations
Two: the program has grown in scope. Many do. :)
>>> In all probability Mr.hh cannot afford the new program....
>>
>> Sour grapes.
>
> It certainly is by JohnnyQ, since I clearly said that I currently have
> the latest Photoshop version (eg, CS4). Depending on JohnnyQ's needs,
> my comment is merely that he may not necessarily be missing all that
> much.
Well, we shall have to see what CS5 offers!
> BTW, in regards to Dreamweaver being used by a quilting club, I don't
> doubt it ... but that doesn't prove that it is the preferred tool for
> personal use websites. The trend appears to have been towards "free"
> services such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Photobucket, Google's
> picasa, etc, etc, ... all of which create turnkey pages with no coding
> required.
Bo doubt that the whole Creative Suite suite is focused on pros and
prosumers.. but there are a lot of people who use Photoshop and Dreamweaver
who are not professionals. But, sure, neither is the norm for general users
and certainly not beginners, nor are they designed to be so.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 8/15/09 6:55 PM:
This semester I am moving to all CS4, but for the Spring and Summer I did
hybrids - used my CS3 material with added CS4 info. So starting this Fall
semester you need the latest and greatest... on either OS X or Windows.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
David Empson
> ... the topic was about Macs getting outdated and not being able to run
> the newest software after a relatively short time. And, well, with the
> loss of PPC support in CS5, the PPC Macs will no longer be supported.
>
> I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
> 64 bit they have a lot on their plate. Might as well move forward as they
> make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
> would feel a bit slighted.
It isn't much worse than CS4, which came out in late 2008 and required a
G5 processor, so the computer had to be no more than five years old
(first PowerMac G5 was mid 2003), and it dropped support for some models
which were less than three years old (last PowerBook G4s). Some
components of CS4 suite already require an Intel processor.
Assuming CS5 comes out somewhere around the middle of 2010, the oldest
Macs it will work on will be about 4.5 years old (first Intel models),
and the youngest orphaned computers will be about four years old (last
PowerMac G5).
CS1 (2003) worked on some Macs from late 1997 (first PowerMac G3), most
from 1998 and all from 1999 (four to six years old). CS2 (2005) still
worked on the same computers (six to eight years old).
CS3 (2007) brought the minimum up to a G4 running 10.4, which cut off
all models prior to 1999 and some as recent as late 2003 (four to eight
years old).
The only thing that differs with CS5 is that it is the high end computer
(PowerMac G5) which is being superseded fastest, since the Mac Pro came
out several months after other Intel models.
Moral of the story: if you want to run the latest and greatest high-end
software, you will probably need to replace your Mac every four or five
years.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Snit
8/15/09 8:22 PM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ... the topic was about Macs getting outdated and not being able to run
>> the newest software after a relatively short time. And, well, with the
>> loss of PPC support in CS5, the PPC Macs will no longer be supported.
>>
>> I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
>> 64 bit they have a lot on their plate. Might as well move forward as they
>> make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
>> would feel a bit slighted.
>
> It isn't much worse than CS4, which came out in late 2008 and required a
> G5 processor, so the computer had to be no more than five years old
> (first PowerMac G5 was mid 2003), and it dropped support for some models
> which were less than three years old (last PowerBook G4s). Some
> components of CS4 suite already require an Intel processor.
Yes... Apple's transitions to Intel and now to *not* having 64 bit Carbon
have created this... but it is not like it is *that* bad. Still, annoying
for some and it does push the need to upgrade. Not like two or three year
old hardware of the type that was likely to be used for CS is not being
fully supported, though.
> Assuming CS5 comes out somewhere around the middle of 2010, the oldest
> Macs it will work on will be about 4.5 years old (first Intel models),
> and the youngest orphaned computers will be about four years old (last
> PowerMac G5).
>
> CS1 (2003) worked on some Macs from late 1997 (first PowerMac G3), most
> from 1998 and all from 1999 (four to six years old). CS2 (2005) still
> worked on the same computers (six to eight years old).
>
> CS3 (2007) brought the minimum up to a G4 running 10.4, which cut off
> all models prior to 1999 and some as recent as late 2003 (four to eight
> years old).
>
> The only thing that differs with CS5 is that it is the high end computer
> (PowerMac G5) which is being superseded fastest, since the Mac Pro came
> out several months after other Intel models.
>
> Moral of the story: if you want to run the latest and greatest high-end
> software, you will probably need to replace your Mac every four or five
> years.
Makes sense. Do you have a similar time line for Windows?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
David Empson
> David Empson stated in post 1j4jq5u.1murn8rxm92fpN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz on
> 8/15/09 8:22 PM:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ... the topic was about Macs getting outdated and not being able to run
> >> the newest software after a relatively short time. And, well, with the
> >> loss of PPC support in CS5, the PPC Macs will no longer be supported.
> >>
> >> I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
> >> 64 bit they have a lot on their plate. Might as well move forward as they
> >> make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
> >> would feel a bit slighted.
> >
> > It isn't much worse than CS4, which came out in late 2008 and required a
> > G5 processor, so the computer had to be no more than five years old
> > (first PowerMac G5 was mid 2003), and it dropped support for some models
> > which were less than three years old (last PowerBook G4s). Some
> > components of CS4 suite already require an Intel processor.
>
> Yes... Apple's transitions to Intel and now to *not* having 64 bit Carbon
> have created this... but it is not like it is *that* bad. Still, annoying
> for some and it does push the need to upgrade.
Agreed.
> Not like two or three year old hardware of the type that was likely to be
> used for CS is not being fully supported, though.
I disagree. Anyone who needed to use Photoshop in a mobile setting on a
Mac would have been using a PowerBook G4. CS4 would have forced them to
upgrade to a MacBook Pro, possibly less than three years after buying
the PBG4.
> > Assuming CS5 comes out somewhere around the middle of 2010, the oldest
> > Macs it will work on will be about 4.5 years old (first Intel models),
> > and the youngest orphaned computers will be about four years old (last
> > PowerMac G5).
> >
> > CS1 (2003) worked on some Macs from late 1997 (first PowerMac G3), most
> > from 1998 and all from 1999 (four to six years old). CS2 (2005) still
> > worked on the same computers (six to eight years old).
> >
> > CS3 (2007) brought the minimum up to a G4 running 10.4, which cut off
> > all models prior to 1999 and some as recent as late 2003 (four to eight
> > years old).
> >
> > The only thing that differs with CS5 is that it is the high end computer
> > (PowerMac G5) which is being superseded fastest, since the Mac Pro came
> > out several months after other Intel models.
> >
> > Moral of the story: if you want to run the latest and greatest high-end
> > software, you will probably need to replace your Mac every four or five
> > years.
>
> Makes sense. Do you have a similar time line for Windows?
No, sorry. Mac specifications and timelines are well documented and easy
to match up with Adobe CS system requirements.
It would require a lot more research to identify a timeline for expected
age of computers running Windows that support particular versions of
Adobe CS.
The cutoff is also much less clear. For example, Photoshop CS4 Windows
requirements says it requires a 1.8 GHz or faster processor. That means
significantly different things if talking about a Pentium 4, Celeron,
Core 2 Duo, or whatever. It is also an arbitrary point of reference:
slower CPUs would work, but be slower.
How do you define a computer which can reaonably run a particular
version of Adobe CS without direct experience?
If we take Adobe's specifications as a reasonable minimum, Photoshop CS4
will run on some computers as old as 2001 (when the 1.8 GHz P4 and
Windows XP were introduced), but I don't know when that sort of speed
was widely available on maintstream computers.
At first glance, it looks like the latest Adobe CS can generally be used
for a year or two longer on high-end Windows computers than on high-end
Macs.
We won't know CS5's specific requirements until it is released. I would
expect it to still work on XP, since it is still the mainstream version
of Windows and probably will be for much of next year, but who knows
what it will specify for minimum hardware.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
18 [X] Dig up arguments from the past
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> JohnQ stated in post 4A870819...@aol.com on 8/15/09 12:10 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> JohnQ stated in post gezhm.54837$sC1....@newsfe17.iad on 8/15/09 7:02 AM:
> >>
> >>>> Poor Snit;)
> >>>>
> >>>> Fact: Anyone who disagrees with the proven fact that you are a
> >>>> disingenuous, lying POS is a liar.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest you quit whining about this reality that you created.
> >>>>
> >>> You sound so bitter. Whatever the past history between the both of
> >>> you is it would be best to look at the past as gone and non existent.
> >>> The future can be a much brighter place without all this unnecessary
> >>> nonproductive recrimination.
> >>
> >> Exactly. Would love to see him let go of his past anger. Steve's whole
> >> anger stems from an incident in 2004 so bothersome to him he now denies it
> >> even happened. Just let it go and move on...
> >
> > You have piqued my interest. Exactly what did happen in 2004.
>
> No desire to go into details on an event that should be long dead, but I
> made some comments about a famous person that Steve did not like. He tried
> to defend the person, but when he failed he went to his game playing -
> insisting that when I say someone is actually guilty of a crime they must be
> found guilty in a court... something I never said the person was. I also
> noted that I could not offer only strong evidence, not proof of the sort
> found in a mathematical proof and Steve *still* pulls that out of context
> and insists that a lack of proof is a a valid refutation (his oft repeated
> argument from ignorance).
>
> Even worse, though, in the midst of this debate (and, I think, starting a
> bit before it), his girlfriend started obsessing over me. She lied about me
> calling her, whined that I would not talk about family planning options with
> her (she was furious when she found out my wife was pregnant), posted
> incorrect information about me that she could have gotten only from the
> *print* edition of my small town local paper, etc. She found in the local
> paper from where my parents live that my mother had passed away... talked
> about specifics of my classes that could only be found on the college
> website where I work, asked me dozens of times how "incest" made me feel and
> related that to a picture of me where I was shirtless and holding my
> new-born daughter - as if that was somehow wrong, and - when I would not
> bend to her will - made public accusations of me committing rape (a claim
> Carroll has made many times). She used online tax records to find the names
> of my neighbors and told me she was having them watch me. She also
> threatened to make false accusations against me to the police - something I
> took seriously enough to print out and take to the police. She was
> contacted and stopped posting to CSMA for over 6 months... and even after
> rarely posts. Thankfully. Carroll will come in and deny the above facts,
> but I have a fully PDF that details this and is linked to the Google archive
> to prove it all. Email me if you want a copy... though I will ask you not
> to make it public being that she has long-ago backed off.
>
> Anyway, she later dumped Steve... and Steve blamed me. He used to brag
> about his 69 mile road trips to her house and even posted a Google map to
> prove that was the distance. Just sickness. But also long ago. Steve
> should let go of his anger and move on.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-FCA4A5.21...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/15/09 6:12 PM:
>
> ...
> >>> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
> >> misinformation.
> >
> > Yet I've been able to support my statement, unlike you. Keep on trolling.
>
> I would *love* see you try to support your recent claims!
yet you've already commented that I did do just that. Just what drugs are you on
now michael?
-hh
> -hh stated in post
> >
> > There were some refinements, to be sure. Afterall, I didn't say that
> > there weren't any improvements: just that the ones that you listed
> > weren't significant to me.
>
> If the topic was you, of course, then no doubt you are the expert in what is
> important to you. No argument here. But the topic was about Macs getting
> outdated and not being able to run the newest software after a relatively
> short time. And, well, with the loss of PPC support in CS5, the PPC Macs
> will no longer be supported.
The fallacy is that if you're looking forward to CS5, it isn't going
to ship for yet another year. The current suggested release date is
mid/late 2010. This puts the definition of a "relatively short time"
at 4 years for the "I know I'm not buying an Intel" users and 5 years
for the pre-Intel-announcement customers.
> I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
> 64 bit they have a lot on their plate. Might as well move forward as they
> make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
> would feel a bit slighted.
The failure to get 64 bit in Mac/CS4 was a bigger deal for the high
end users. 5 years life from a single rendering box is a long time.
> >>>> And now 3D images as well.
>
> > True, but its a completely moot when using it for its originally
> > intended application of "PHOTOgraphs," which are overwhelmingly 2D.
>
> One: the 3D features can benefit photographic manipulations
It may be "possible", but perhaps you can provide a few examples as to
how this is of benefit to manipulating a standard still photograph.
Note that even Adobe doesn't recommend 'Extended' for photographers:
they say its for film, video, multimedia & graphic/web designers using
3D and motion. See: <http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/
>
> Two: the program has grown in scope.
And to get 3D, its grown in price, too: Rounding, the MSRP for CS4
Std is $700/$200 upgrade, whereas Extended jumps that to $1000/$350.
> > Depending on JohnnyQ's needs, my comment is merely
> > that he may not necessarily be missing all that much.
>
> Well, we shall have to see what CS5 offers!
Exactly. Its hard to justify that one "must have" something when it
is still a year out from delivery and there's no clear list of what
its features are going to entail, with the singular exception of
64bit. But the number of stacked images & layers that one needs to
have today is very limited, and typically entails highest end gear
(eg, 20+MP dSLRs).
> > BTW, in regards to Dreamweaver being used by a quilting club, I don't
> > doubt it ... but that doesn't prove that it is the preferred tool for
> > personal use websites. The trend appears to have been towards "free"
> > services such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Photobucket, Google's
> > picasa, etc, etc, ... all of which create turnkey pages with no coding
> > required.
>
> No doubt that the whole Creative Suite suite is focused on pros and
> prosumers.. but there are a lot of people who use Photoshop and Dreamweaver
> who are not professionals. But, sure, neither is the norm for general users
> and certainly not beginners, nor are they designed to be so.
Then you're agreeing that we can stop letting the tail wag the dog?
-hh
Snit
8/16/09 12:39 AM:
I was asked a question. I answered it. Sandman cries. Oh well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 11:08 PM:
Hmmm, would have to check dates, but, sure, I can see where that would be
frustrating to have a less than three year old Mac not be able to run the
newest version. Would be like my iMac not being able to run CS5. I would
be bummed.
Used to be Macs allowed a longer window... a shame it has reversed.
> We won't know CS5's specific requirements until it is released. I would
> expect it to still work on XP, since it is still the mainstream version
> of Windows and probably will be for much of next year, but who knows
> what it will specify for minimum hardware.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> JohnQ stated in post 4A870819.7050...@aol.com on 8/15/09 12:10 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> JohnQ stated in post gezhm.54837$sC1.41...@newsfe17.iad on 8/15/09 7:02 AM:
>
> >>>> Poor Snit;)
>
> >>>> Fact: Anyone who disagrees with the proven fact that you are a
> >>>> disingenuous, lying POS is a liar.
>
> >>>> I suggest you quit whining about this reality that you created.
>
> >>> You sound so bitter. Whatever the past history between the both of
> >>> you is it would be best to look at the past as gone and non existent.
> >>> The future can be a much brighter place without all this unnecessary
> >>> nonproductive recrimination.
>
> >> anger stems from an incident in 2004 so bothersome to him he now denies it
> >> even happened. Just let it go and move on...
>
> > You have piqued my interest. Exactly what did happen in 2004.
>
> No desire to go into details on an event that should be long dead, but I
> made some comments about a famous person that Steve did not like. He tried
> to defend the person,
I defended against your ridiculous notion that someone can be labeled
"guilty" in an environment where the "evidence" against that person,
to hear you tell it, "does not offer proof". Sane, honest and
honorable people reject this notion... which is why we find you
embracing it.
> but when he failed he went to his game playing -
> insisting that when I say someone is actually guilty of a crime
Hint: Anyone can "say" it. For sane, honest and honorable people some
level of proof is required before 'saying' it.
> they must be found guilty in a court... something I never said the person was.
Here's something you *did* "say" about this person's alleged guilt...
specifically regarding the 'evidence' you used to convince yourself of
it:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a
formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument
points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
a
logical sense, proof." - Snit
There you are flatly admitting that proof, as per the definition you
chose to use, was not offered in the process of you making your
determination.
How can you possibly claim someone *is* guilty when you simultaneously
admit you have no proof for saying it? How can you claim that your
evidence "strongly supports" your argument when you admit you can't
point to a single true thing from which "something else necessarily
follows from it"? Only in your delusional world of insanity can such
statements exist.
Fact: You said, in what you called a "legal" context, that someone was
"guilty of breaking the law". As this definition of the word
"guilty" (from one of the most widely accepted, online legal
dictionaries) shows, this means that the person has been convicted of
a crime by the proper governing body.
guilty
adj. having been convicted of a crime or having admitted the
commission of a crime by pleading "guilty" (saying you did it). A
defendant may also be found guilty by a judge after a plea of "no
contest," or in Latin nolo contendere. The term "guilty" is also
sometimes applied to persons against whom a judgment has been found in
a lawsuit for a civil wrong, such as negligence or some intentional
act like assault or fraud, but that is a confusing misuse of the word
since it should only apply to a criminal charge.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=847
> I also
> noted that I could not offer only strong evidence, not proof of the sort
> found in a mathematical proof and Steve
Why are you talking about math again, Snit? To obfuscate? Do you
really think people are as stupid as you need them to be?
> *still* pulls that out of context
Another lie by you... designed to obfuscate the fact that you admitted
your evidence "does not offer proof".
> and insists that a lack of proof is a a valid refutation (his oft repeated
> argument from ignorance).
Correction: You are insisting that having NO proof at all equates to
someone's guilt. That's totally absurd... which is why we find only
you insisting it.
You can whine all you want but anyone that can comprehend what they
read see the facts just aren't with you. To sum up...
1 - I have show that you've admitted the "evidence" you've convinced
yourself with "does not offer proof"
2 - I have shown that, in a "legal" context, (where *you* placed your
argument) guilty means what the definition above says it means.
For your part... we have you *claiming* a bunch of BS... offering
"proof" for none of it.
(snip a bunch of Snit;s other lies)
Steve Carroll
> > wrote:
>
> >> High Priest wrote:
> >>> In article <4A86D2DA.8000...@aol.com>, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Tim Adams wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I am sure, for both programs, there is more.
> >>>>>> Sure, but the basic point Tim was making was that of "Diminishing
> >>>>>> Returns" when the baseline product is relatively mature. For
> >>>>>> Photoshop, there's only so many improvements that one can make to what
> >>>>>> is essentially the manipulation of how a two dimensional image is
> >>>>>> perceived.
> >>>>> I'm glad at least one person saw, and understood my point.
>
> >>>> Glad that another non thinker agrees with you. Doesn't take much to
> >>>> make you happy does it.
>
> >>> I'm just a passer-by but I have to ask...what the hell did the earlier
> >>> poster say to justify such rudeness?
> >> every opportunity to provoke me. For no good reason I might add since I
> >> don't know or would not want to know him. But there are a few bitter
> >> individuals here who seem to do this on a regular basis to rationalize
> >> their miserable existence.
>
>
> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
> socks persecution of Snit.
Pointing to someone's constant stream of lies isn't a "persecution"
for any sane, honest and honorable person.
Steve Carroll
So, IOW, you're pissed because Apple was not able to retroactively
give you what you "want"?
LOL!
Snit
c1c253dc-c377-41e5...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 8/16/09
4:57 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> -hh stated in post
>>>
>>> There were some refinements, to be sure. � Afterall, I didn't say that
>>> there weren't any improvements: �just that the ones that you listed
>>> weren't significant to me.
>>
>> If the topic was you, of course, then no doubt you are the expert in what is
>> important to you. �No argument here. �But the topic was about Macs getting
>> outdated and not being able to run the newest software after a relatively
>> short time. �And, well, with the loss of PPC support in CS5, the PPC Macs
>> will no longer be supported.
>
> The fallacy is that if you're looking forward to CS5, it isn't going
> to ship for yet another year. The current suggested release date is
> mid/late 2010. This puts the definition of a "relatively short time"
> at 4 years for the "I know I'm not buying an Intel" users and 5 years
> for the pre-Intel-announcement customers.
Four years is still a relatively short time. Still, as you note, those who
bought a PPC at that time *knew* Intel was coming.
>> I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
>> 64 bit they have a lot on their plate. �Might as well move forward as they
>> make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
>> would feel a bit slighted.
>
> The failure to get 64 bit in Mac/CS4 was a bigger deal for the high
> end users. 5 years life from a single rendering box is a long time.
But the timeline is not a full five years.
>>>>>> And now 3D images as well. �
>>
>>> True, but its a completely moot when using it for its originally
>>> intended application of "PHOTOgraphs," which are overwhelmingly 2D.
>>
>> One: the 3D features can benefit photographic manipulations
>
> It may be "possible", but perhaps you can provide a few examples as to
> how this is of benefit to manipulating a standard still photograph.
Combining elements.
Also, we have not mentioned the video additions... many advantages for
photographers there... my favorite is getting a short clip from a tripod and
then getting the most common pixels to remove people, cars, etc. Very cool.
> Note that even Adobe doesn't recommend 'Extended' for photographers:
> they say its for film, video, multimedia & graphic/web designers using
> 3D and motion. See: <http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/
So it is of some value for that group... and more value for others. That
more value is important to many. If not, how many "extended" products would
they sell?
>> Two: the program has grown in scope. �
>
> And to get 3D, its grown in price, too: Rounding, the MSRP for CS4
> Std is $700/$200 upgrade, whereas Extended jumps that to $1000/$350.
Who pays full price? Not I... or most who use it. But OK... sure, it is
expensive. Not sure how that relates the conversation.
>>> �Depending on JohnnyQ's needs, my comment is merely
>>> that he may not necessarily be missing all that much.
>>
>> Well, we shall have to see what CS5 offers!
>
> Exactly. Its hard to justify that one "must have" something when it
> is still a year out from delivery and there's no clear list of what
> its features are going to entail, with the singular exception of
> 64bit. But the number of stacked images & layers that one needs to
> have today is very limited, and typically entails highest end gear
> (eg, 20+MP dSLRs).
Not sure what you mean by needing only a limited number of layers...
>>> BTW, in regards to Dreamweaver being used by a quilting club, I don't
>>> doubt it ... but that doesn't prove that it is the preferred tool for
>>> personal use websites. �The trend appears to have been towards "free"
>>> services such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Photobucket, Google's
>>> picasa, etc, etc, ... all of which create turnkey pages with no coding
>>> required.
>>
>> No doubt that the whole Creative Suite suite is focused on pros and
>> prosumers.. but there are a lot of people who use Photoshop and Dreamweaver
>> who are not professionals. �But, sure, neither is the norm for general users
>> and certainly not beginners, nor are they designed to be so.
>
> Then you're agreeing that we can stop letting the tail wag the dog?
If you are asking if I agree with Adobe's decision to let go of PPC, I have
already said I do - though I understand how this can be frustrating to some.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/16/09 3:08 AM:
> In article <C6ACAFD5.417A6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Adams stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-FCA4A5.21...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
>> 8/15/09 6:12 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
>>>> misinformation.
>>>
>>> Yet I've been able to support my statement, unlike you. Keep on trolling.
>>
>> I would *love* see you try to support your recent claims! But you will
>> not... 100% predictable:
>>
>> -----
>> But, since you still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde
>> in the path name to get to the location where Apple's widgets
>> are installed.
>> -----
>> true to form, michael glasser proves once again he can't use
>> a simple search engine.
>> -----
>> Steve Carroll proved michael (aka: snit) glasser to be an
>> asshole so many times, that snit lost his mind, or rather
>> what little of it he had left after all his drug use, and has
>> been bitter ever since.
>> -----
>>
>> Since it is, of course, 100% predictable that you will not support those
>> clearly bizarre and delusional claims of yours, and likely will not even try,
>> the question becomes what tactic you will use to run. Just be boring and
>> snip? Insist you already have supported them but then "forget" to point to
>> any evidence? Say no support is needed since your co-trolls do not disagree?
>> Oh, the choices for you! The excitement of those who read your drivel...
>>
>> Just please make your response be amusing... not just cowardly.
Oh, Tim... I even said please in asking you to not just be a coward and snip
and run... I said *please*. But you still snipped and ran. Oh, Tim, you
are such a disappointment! I returned what you snipped.
Sigh... not like you will grow a backbone and actually try to support your
claims. Oh well.
> yet you've already commented that I did do just that. Just what drugs are you
> on now michael?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> Moral of the story: if you want to run the latest and greatest high-end
> software, you will probably need to replace your Mac every four or five
> years.
Which is a long time in the computing world... and it wouldn't tend to
bother people that are using these apps to actually make money with
(what the apps are designed for).
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-69497F.09390816082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/16/09 12:39 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Exactly. Would love to see him let go of his past anger. Steve's whole
> >>>> anger stems from an incident in 2004 so bothersome to him he now denies it
> >>>> even happened. Just let it go and move on...
>
> >>> You have piqued my interest. Exactly what did happen in 2004.
>
> >> No desire to go into details on an event that should be long dead
(snip Snit's lies while leaving his new lie that he has "No desire to
go into details on an event that should be long dead" )
> I was asked a question. I answered it.
You answered it by telling a pack of lies... you know, the way you
answer most things.
> Sandman cries. Oh well.
Sandman didn't cry... he pointed out another reality you would prefer
you didn't create. As usual... you're the one crying here;)
JohnQ
I prefer to use my PPC with Adobe. Now I will be forced to use it with
my old HP which is six years old not three like my PPC. Your
description of me being pissed shows how stupid and narrow minded you
are. If I can get what I want with no problem on a PC why not with a PPC.
Therefore you are too stupid to talk to *plonk*
Steve Carroll
"Actually"... my accurate description shows how stupid and narrow
minded you are.
Now continue on with your feeble shilling for Snit...
Snit
>>> I want the newest Adobe because I use Adobe on a daily basis for my
>>> work.
>>
>> So, IOW, you're pissed because Apple was not able to retroactively
>> give you what you "want"?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>
> I prefer to use my PPC with Adobe. Now I will be forced to use it with
> my old HP which is six years old not three like my PPC. Your
> description of me being pissed shows how stupid and narrow minded you
> are. If I can get what I want with no problem on a PC why not with a PPC.
>
> Therefore you are too stupid to talk to *plonk*
Let's see: you have a three year old Mac and a six year old PC. The next
version of Photoshop will likely work on your PC and not your Mac. This,
you note, is a weakness of the Mac platform and a frustration to you...
though, I believe, you have agreed to understand Adobe's reasoning... and
likely even Apple's. Nowhere have you said or shown yourself to be "pissed"
about the facts you have noted.
And this is a problem... how?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> JohnQ stated in post 4A882583.5000...@aol.com on 8/16/09 8:28 AM:
Poor Snit... reality is just never on his side...
"My issue is that I'm ticked off that a perfectly good almost new
machine is incapable of running new software." - JohnQ
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/21e42dc45f3cf064?hl=en&dmode=source
My prediction: Snit will try to claim that the term "ticked off" means
that JohnQ is "actually" happy about this situation.
> And this is a problem... how?
Not jibing with reality doesn't ever seem to be a problem for you,
Snit. LOL!
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Snit
>
> I was asked a question. I answered it. Sandman cries. Oh well.
And honest and honorable person would have replied that it's all in
the past, and that he didn't want to bring it up again.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/16/09 10:23 AM:
Carroll (and you, for that matter, though to a lesser extent) are still
reacting poorly based on the past... someone else who noted Steve's poor
behavior and commented on it wanted to know why Steve acts the way he does.
I gave some information and offered others in a non-public fashion. You did
not like this, so you call it dishonest and dishonorable. What is
dishonorable about helping someone to understand why Carroll is so
hate-filled and irrational in regards to me? Keep in mind I did not offer
to make public the PDF with the full links and support because it refers to
someone who is *not* acting in response to the past. I was careful to not
even mention this person's name, even though they are very much tied to the
reasons Carroll acts so mad-hatter over the top insane.
Then again, you whined that when I noted a disagreement I have with *Tim
Adams* that this somehow goes against me telling you I will not speak of my
disagreement with you... even though the disagreements are not the same.
Yes, they both revolve around comments made about your CSS, but they are not
the same issue. I have not and will not speak of my disagreement with you
over your claims about your CSS, nor will I re-post the proof that shows,
indisputably, that my claims are accurate.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:40 AM:
To clarify that last point: I shall not do so as long as you, Sandman, are
not doing so or clearly lashing out against me in anger over past issues.
If you start focusing on the past issues then, of course, I shall feel free
to speak of them again. You let the issue go and so will I... and you have
been doing so well... other than to debate the meta-topic of if I am
bringing up the topic that shall not be named. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-76C349.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/16/09 3:08 AM:
>
> > In article <C6ACAFD5.417A6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Adams stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-FCA4A5.21...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> >> 8/15/09 6:12 PM:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>>>> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
> >>>> misinformation.
> >>>
> >>> Yet I've been able to support my statement, unlike you. Keep on trolling.
> >>
> >> I would *love* see you try to support your recent claims!
> > yet you've already commented that I did do just that. Just what drugs are
> > you
> > on now michael?
>
> Oh, Tim... I even said
You've said lots of shit. most of it lies. you've forged quotes and pdf files.
you've also claimed to be honest and honorable but constantly prove you don't
know the meaning of the words. so typical of the troll who claims to 'eat dog
shit' to get attention.
Babbling snipped
Snit
8/16/09 11:52 AM:
>>
>> Oh, Tim... I even said
>
> You've said lots of shit. most of it lies. you've forged quotes and pdf files.
> you've also claimed to be honest and honorable but constantly prove you don't
> know the meaning of the words. so typical of the troll who claims to 'eat dog
> shit' to get attention.
I would *love* see you try to support your recent claims! But you will
not... 100% predictable:
-----
But, since you still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde
in the path name to get to the location where Apple's widgets
are installed.
-----
true to form, michael glasser proves once again he can't use
a simple search engine.
-----
Steve Carroll proved michael (aka: snit) glasser to be an
asshole so many times, that snit lost his mind, or rather
what little of it he had left after all his drug use, and has
been bitter ever since.
-----
Since it is, of course, 100% predictable that you will not support those
clearly bizarre and delusional claims of yours, and likely will not even
try, the question becomes what tactic you will use to run. Just be boring
and snip? Insist you already have supported them but then "forget" to point
to any evidence? Say no support is needed since your co-trolls do not
disagree? Oh, the choices for you! The excitement of those who read your
drivel...
Just please make your response be amusing... not just cowardly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <4A882583...@aol.com>):
Well, that's about everybody that you've "plonked", isn't it? Why don't you
just leave?
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-AD7378.19235116082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/16/09 10:23 AM:
>
> > In article <C6AD6809.418B6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Snit
>
> >> I was asked a question. I answered it. Sandman cries. Oh well.
>
> > And honest and honorable person would have replied that it's all in
> > the past, and that he didn't want to bring it up again.
>
> Carroll (and you, for that matter, though to a lesser extent) are still
> reacting poorly based on the past...
Said the liar who lied (again) when he recently wrote:
"I shall not mention it again unless you do"... with "it" being
"the CSS issue":
"Seriously: I would love to see the back and forth BS just stop. Can
we both agree to just let the CSS issue *go* and to not lash out based
on it?
It really is silly. How about this, starting now I shall not mention
it
again unless you do." - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0120f49bc4cd7f75?hl=en&dmode=source
(poor Snit... giving his readers and endless stream of reasons not to
believe a word he says).
Google follows you around like a trail of toilet paper protruding from
your pants, Snit. LOL!
> someone else who noted Steve's poor
> behavior and commented on it wanted to know why Steve acts the way he does.
Translation: Another troll or Snit shill wanted to pretend that Snit
is just fine... it's everyone else that's screwy.
> I gave some information
You lied. Period. And I proved it... again... and you "hate" that;)
(snip Snit's whining about how 'hated' he is)
Steve Carroll
> In article <C6AD6ED4.418CB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Tim Adams stated in post
> > 8/16/09 3:08 AM:
>
> > > In article <C6ACAFD5.417A6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Tim Adams stated in post
> > >> 8/15/09 6:12 PM:
>
> > >> ...
> > >>>>> So sorry you don't like reality pointed out to you.
>
> > >>>> In reality your reality is nothing more than fantasy supposition and
> > >>>> misinformation.
>
> > >>> Yet I've been able to support my statement, unlike you. Keep on trolling.
>
> > >> I would *love* see you try to support your recent claims!
> > > yet you've already commented that I did do just that. Just what drugs are
> > > you
> > > on now michael?
>
> > Oh, Tim... I even said
>
> You've said lots of shit. most of it lies. you've forged quotes and pdf files.
> you've also claimed to be honest and honorable but constantly prove you don't
> know the meaning of the words. so typical of the troll who claims to 'eat dog
> shit' to get attention.
>
And his "defense" for *all* of it is that he is just oh so "hated" ;)
Steve Carroll
> Snit stated in post C6AD929A.41942%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 8/16/09
> 10:40 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
Gee, you just finished telling this same lie once today about the CSS
issue... you know... where I busted you on it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3a6023b6943f5628?dmode=source
(snip even more of Snit's lies)
Steve Carroll
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:28:03 -0700, JohnQ wrote
If this poster isn't Snit himself it's one of his "students" or a
relative that feels sorry for Snit;)
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:48�ｿｽam, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Snit stated in post C6AD929A.41942%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 8/16/09
> > 10:40 AM:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Sandman stated in post mr-AD7378.19235116082...@News.Individual.NET on
> > > 8/16/09 10:23 AM:
> >
> > >> In article <C6AD6809.418B6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > >> �ｿｽSnit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Snit
> >
> > >>> I was asked a question. �ｿｽI answered it. �ｿｽSandman cries. �ｿｽOh well.
> >
> > >> And honest and honorable person would have replied that it's all in
> > >> the past, and that he didn't want to bring it up again.
> >
> > > Carroll (and you, for that matter, though to a lesser extent) are still
> > > reacting poorly based on the past... someone else who noted Steve's poor
> > > behavior and commented on it wanted to know why Steve acts the way he
> > > does.
> > > I gave some information and offered others in a non-public fashion. �ｿｽYou
> > > did
> > > not like this, so you call it dishonest and dishonorable. �ｿｽWhat is
> > > dishonorable about helping someone to understand why Carroll is so
> > > hate-filled and irrational in regards to me? �ｿｽKeep in mind I did not
> > > offer
> > > to make public the PDF with the full links and support because it refers
> > > to
> > > someone who is *not* acting in response to the past. I was careful to not
> > > even mention this person's name, even though they are very much tied to
> > > the
> > > reasons Carroll acts so mad-hatter over the top insane.
> >
> > > Then again, you whined that when I noted a disagreement I have with *Tim
> > > Adams* that this somehow goes against me telling you I will not speak of
> > > my
> > > disagreement with you... even though the disagreements are not the same.
> > > Yes, they both revolve around comments made about your CSS, but they are
> > > not
> > > the same issue. �ｿｽI have not and will not speak of my disagreement with
> > > you
> > > over your claims about your CSS, nor will I re-post the proof that shows,
> > > indisputably, that my claims are accurate.
> >
> > To clarify that last point: I shall not do so as long as you
>
> Gee, you just finished telling this same lie once today about the CSS
> issue... you know... where I busted you on it here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3a6023b6943f5628?dmod
> e=source
>
> (snip even more of Snit's lies)
you didn't expect anything else from michael now did you? Year ago when the
whole discussion of the tilde came up, michael glasser was shown he had a
reading problem, finally after a year or so of continuing to troll about it,
admitted he was wrong but now all of a sudden decided to drag it out again, even
thought he -claims- he doesn't like people that do things like that. So typical
of the idiot just looking for attention. but michael glasser will just keep on
disrupting as many different groups as he can with his lies and multiple sock
puppets.
-hh
> -hh stated:
> >
> > The fallacy is that if you're looking forward to CS5, it isn't going
> > to ship for yet another year. The current suggested release date is
> > mid/late 2010. This puts the definition of a "relatively short time"
> > at 4 years for the "I know I'm not buying an Intel" users and 5 years
> > for the pre-Intel-announcement customers.
>
> Four years is still a relatively short time. Still, as you note, those who
> bought a PPC at that time *knew* Intel was coming.
Four years is two iterations of Moore's Law, which connotes 4x the
power. For a business where improved performance yields productivity
gains that improves the bottom line, the more classical approach is to
upgrade at 2 years. A 'trickle down' of the hardware used to be de
rigueur, but even this is falling by the wayside because even a $3K
desktop isn't particularly profound when it comes to the annual cost
of a fully burdened knowledge worker, its more likely approaching ~1%
noise.
For home & student, the approach is similar, but the timeline simply
elongates because the ROI is less compelling because there's not the
same kind of direct dollars bottom line to address.
> >> I understand why Adobe made that choice - with having to move to Cocoa and
> >> 64 bit they have a lot on their plate. Might as well move forward as they
> >> make such changes... but I can also see where people with the later G5s
> >> would feel a bit slighted.
>
> > The failure to get 64 bit in Mac/CS4 was a bigger deal for the high
> > end users. 5 years life from a single rendering box is a long time.
>
> But the timeline is not a full five years.
2Q 2005: Apple's Intel Announcement
3Q 2010: current estimated date for CS5 release
That sure looks like 5+ years to me.
> >> One: the 3D features can benefit photographic manipulations
>
> > It may be "possible", but perhaps you can provide a few examples as to
> > how this is of benefit to manipulating a standard still photograph.
>
> Combining elements.
Which means precisely what? Are you claiming that it can now do a non-
nodal panoramic stitch?
> Also, we have not mentioned the video additions... many advantages for
> photographers there... my favorite is getting a short clip from a tripod and
> then getting the most common pixels to remove people, cars, etc. Very cool.
A potentially useful feature for those who need it, although the use
of video comes at the price of a resolution hit.
> > Note that even Adobe doesn't recommend 'Extended' for photographers:
> > they say its for film, video, multimedia & graphic/web designers using
> > 3D and motion. See: <http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/
>
> So it is of some value for that group... and more value for others.
YMMV, but the conventional definition of "more value" precludes paying
a higher price for features that one doesn't use.
> >> Two: the program has grown in scope.
>
> > And to get 3D, its grown in price, too: Rounding, the MSRP for CS4
> > Std is $700/$200 upgrade, whereas Extended jumps that to $1000/$350.
>
> Who pays full price? Not I...
The discounted "Student" price is merely a marketing strategy of a
carrot to incentivize you to invest your skillset development in their
product in lieu of a customer's, for subsequent graduation into real
jobs. Microsoft does this too.
> >> Well, we shall have to see what CS5 offers!
>
> > Exactly. Its hard to justify that one "must have" something when it
> > is still a year out from delivery and there's no clear list of what
> > its features are going to entail, with the singular exception of
> > 64bit. But the number of stacked images & layers that one needs to
> > have today is very limited, and typically entails highest end gear
> > (eg, 20+MP dSLRs).
>
> Not sure what you mean by needing only a limited number of layers...
Because that's not what I said. What I said was that the number of
customers is limited (who need that particular feature set). Roughly
speaking, you need to have over 25 full layers on a 10 megapixel image
in order to encounter the 32bit/64bit issue ... how often do you
personally do that? If the answer is 'never', then you simply don't
need 64bit addressability. Period.
> >>> BTW, in regards to Dreamweaver being used by a quilting club, I don't
> >>> doubt it ... but that doesn't prove that it is the preferred tool for
> >>> personal use websites....
> >>
> >> No doubt that the whole Creative Suite suite is focused on pros and
> >> prosumers.. but there are a lot of people who use Photoshop and Dreamweaver
> >> who are not professionals. But, sure, neither is the norm for general users
> >> and certainly not beginners, nor are they designed to be so.
>
> > Then you're agreeing that we can stop letting the tail wag the dog?
>
> If you are asking if I agree with Adobe's decision to let go of PPC...
Also wrong. This was also about addressing the needs/desires of a
likely unprofitable minority (tail) while ignoring (wagging) the money-
making majority (the dog).
-hh
David Empson
> David Empson stated in post 1j4jx8v.1u844371iji7yxN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz on
> 8/15/09 11:08 PM:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> David Empson wrote:
> >>
> >>> It isn't much worse than CS4, which came out in late 2008 and required a
> >>> G5 processor, so the computer had to be no more than five years old
> >>> (first PowerMac G5 was mid 2003), and it dropped support for some models
> >>> which were less than three years old (last PowerBook G4s). Some
> >>> components of CS4 suite already require an Intel processor.
> >> Not like two or three year old hardware of the type that was likely to be
> >> used for CS is not being fully supported, though.
> >
> > I disagree. Anyone who needed to use Photoshop in a mobile setting on a
> > Mac would have been using a PowerBook G4. CS4 would have forced them to
> > upgrade to a MacBook Pro, possibly less than three years after buying
> > the PBG4.
>
> Hmmm, would have to check dates, but, sure, I can see where that would be
> frustrating to have a less than three year old Mac not be able to run the
> newest version. Would be like my iMac not being able to run CS5. I would
> be bummed.
CS4 was introduced on 23 September 2008.
The last model of the PowerBook G4 (with double layer superdrive) was
introduced in October 2005 and replaced by the first MacBook Pro in
February 2006.
At the introduction of CS4, that final PowerBook G4 was less than three
years old and it wasn't supported.
The previous PBG4 (introduced January 2005) would have been between
almost three years old and 3.75 years old.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Snit
8/16/09 6:51 PM:
>> Gee, you just finished telling this same lie once today about the CSS
>> issue... you know... where I busted you on it here:
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3a6023b6943f5628?dmo>>
d
>> e=source
>>
>> (snip even more of Snit's lies)
>
> you didn't expect anything else from michael now did you?
Steve Carroll does not know the difference between *the* CSS issue and *a*
CSS issue. Heck, it is the same CSS even, so maybe that is what has him
confused... but it is not the same issue. One issue is you, Tim Adams
claiming that Sandman's CSS validated when Sandman himself said it did not
validate, and the other issue is... well, one I have agreed to not talk
about unless or until Sandman does.
> Year ago when the whole discussion of the tilde came up, michael glasser was
> shown he had a reading problem, finally after a year or so of continuing to
> troll about it, admitted he was wrong but now all of a sudden decided to drag
> it out again, even thought he -claims- he doesn't like people that do things
> like that.
Where do you think I was *wrong* to call you on your mistakes and lies,
quoted here:
-----
Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
-----
YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only. To bad in your reading, your
delusions took over.
-----
With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of
the widgets. With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library
there IS NO directory called widget UNLESS you've installed
the malware widget or another self installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that
widgets were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE
~ AS THE NAME OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library
-----
But, since you still haven't learned, you do NOT need a tilde
in the path name to get to the location where Apple's widgets
are installed.
-----
Those are all quotes from you, Tim Adams. You are clearly saying things
that are incorrect and you are clearly making accusations you will *never*
even try to support.
> So typical of the idiot just looking for attention. but michael
> glasser will just keep on disrupting as many different groups as he can with
> his lies and multiple sock puppets.
See how you make all sorts of accusations you cannot support.
Reprehensible.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]