KB2799926 warning

[philo]

Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it
broke CS6

Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.

[Robert Coe]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:27:56 -0500, philo�ｿｽ <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:
: Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it

: broke CS6
:
: Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.

I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can rent its
replacement for the rest of your life. :^)

Bob

[Savageduck]

Wrong end of the problem Bob. Philo should have updated his wife's Win7
by getting her a Mac. ;-)

As far as Photoshop goes, I will be more than done with any further
updates when Adobe stops a solid upgrade path. For now it appears there
will be no CS7. So CS6 is the end of the road for me.

Adobe is only doing the "Creative Cloud" thing to the CS Suite for now.
So, until they kill it off I will continue to update Lightroom if the
features/benefits outweigh to update cost.

The LR - PS combo still fits my workflow comfortably


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <k5sso81juq0nvdri9...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it
> : broke CS6
> :
> : Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.
>
> I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can rent its
> replacement for the rest of your life. :^)

yes you most certainly can. adobe has said they are going to continue
to update cs6 for bugs and security issues.

there just won't be a cs7.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.11 15:41 , Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-11 09:26:27 -0700, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>

>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:27:56 -0500, philo <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:
>> : Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it
>> : broke CS6
>> :
>> : Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.
>>
>> I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can
>> rent its
>> replacement for the rest of your life. :^)
>>
>> Bob
>
> Wrong end of the problem Bob. Philo should have updated his wife's Win7
> by getting her a Mac. ;-)
>
> As far as Photoshop goes, I will be more than done with any further
> updates when Adobe stops a solid upgrade path. For now it appears there
> will be no CS7. So CS6 is the end of the road for me.
>
> Adobe is only doing the "Creative Cloud" thing to the CS Suite for now.
> So, until they kill it off I will continue to update Lightroom if the
> features/benefits outweigh to update cost.
>
> The LR - PS combo still fits my workflow comfortably

I'll stop at CS5 for PS. I don't have LR.

I might even (shudder) get Aperture - though the reviews for it on the
Apple site aren't all that inspiring - maybe only bitchers comment?

What Adobe are attempting do is insane pricewise.

It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
users would pay proportionately less.

It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...

What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[Mayayana]

| What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
| a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
|

As I understood it, it's $20/month for any
one program.

[nospam]

In article <ibWdnXPn4ax1XxPM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I'll stop at CS5 for PS. I don't have LR.
>
> I might even (shudder) get Aperture - though the reviews for it on the
> Apple site aren't all that inspiring - maybe only bitchers comment?

the main advantage to aperture is its integration with idevices and not
needing to use iphoto for photos on them. otherwise, lightroom is much
better.

> What Adobe are attempting do is insane pricewise.
>
> It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
> of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
> processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
> users would pay proportionately less.

that's one way to do it.

> It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
> only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
> And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...

you can use more than one at a time. launch both illustrator and
photoshop, for instance.

> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).

do you own cs3-cs6? if so, it's $10/mo for a single app for the first
year, then it's the standard $20/mo.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-11 15:15:03 -0700, Alan Browne

$20/month is what the PS module will cost you. The CS5 to CS6 upgrade
(download only) is $199.

CS6 has some new features which had been tempting me. So during the
week I made the move, but it was not without having to jump through the
hoops. Nowhere on the Adobe site is there an obvious means to buy the
CS5-CS6 upgrade, everything is "Creative Cloud".

I called the 800-585-0774 sale/service number and expressed my
disappointment that they had made this move to the CC and my inability
to find a path to the upgrade. I was told that they no longer had DVD
editions of the upgrade and full versions of CS6 DVDs would only be
available until inventory was depleted.

Anyway, I stepped up and bought the upgrade. The download method was
also a bit convoluted, but actually took about 3 minutes. I figured I
would rather have a copy of CS6 on my HD than pay $20/months until I
can no longer understand what I am doing with my cameras and/or
computer. From what I have worked through with CS6 so far, I am glad I
made the move.

I like LR4 and as I said I like to work with the LR + PS combo.
However, for now any further CS upgrade via the CC is out of the
question for me.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
review*, but I haven't tried it.

www.organicimaging.com

*Magazines like "Shutterbug" don't seem to *ever* give anything but
good reviews to products, so that might not mean anything. Still, the
trial download is free.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:22:34 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
: In article <k5sso81juq0nvdri9...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

What they said, in effect, is that they have no immediate plans not to. DR (I
believe it was) published an interview with an Adobe bigshot the other day.
Rarely will you see anyone choose his words more carefully.

But the truly bizarre position that Adobe seems to be taking is that
photographers shouldn't be concerned, because they don't need Photoshop anyway
and should be using Lightroom instead. So who does need Photoshop? High-end
graphic designers?

Another little gem from the mouth of the Adobe spokesman: while the new
Photoshop will be rigged to stop working(!) if you haven't paid your bill,
you're allowed(!) to uninstall it for free.

The other day I attended a lecture/demo by Aaron Nace, who considers himself
(justifiably, I guess) to be one of the world's foremost Photoshop experts.
Damn! If it had been one week later, I could have asked him what he thought of
Adobe's new direction.

Bob

[Tony Cooper]

What new features in CS6 did you like?

I've tried "content aware fill" several times and not been all that
overwhelmed. Too often, it picks up surrounding content that I don't
want. When it works, it works well.

[nospam]

In article <9smto81gi2maotgf0...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : > I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can
> : > rent its replacement for the rest of your life. :^)
> :
> : yes you most certainly can. adobe has said they are going to continue
> : to update cs6 for bugs and security issues.
>
> What they said, in effect, is that they have no immediate plans not to. DR (I
> believe it was) published an interview with an Adobe bigshot the other day.
> Rarely will you see anyone choose his words more carefully.

what's careful about that?

cs6 will get bugfixes and security updates. it won't get new features.

had adobe not done creative cloud and went ahead with cs7, it would
have been the same as far as cs6 goes. this is nothing new.

> But the truly bizarre position that Adobe seems to be taking is that
> photographers shouldn't be concerned, because they don't need Photoshop anyway
> and should be using Lightroom instead. So who does need Photoshop? High-end
> graphic designers?

basically. that's why photoshop costs a lot, while photoshop elements
and lightroom do not.

> Another little gem from the mouth of the Adobe spokesman: while the new
> Photoshop will be rigged to stop working(!) if you haven't paid your bill,

guess what happens if you don't pay your phone bill or mortgage payment.

creative cloud is subscription based. if you don't pay, it doesn't work.

why is this surprising?

> you're allowed(!) to uninstall it for free.

obviously it can be uninstalled for free. anything can be uninstalled
for free. worst case, erase the hard drive. it's not possible to charge
to uninstall something.

or just leave it installed in case you renew it at a later date.

> The other day I attended a lecture/demo by Aaron Nace, who considers himself
> (justifiably, I guess) to be one of the world's foremost Photoshop experts.
> Damn! If it had been one week later, I could have asked him what he thought of
> Adobe's new direction.

some people like the idea, others don't and some don't really care one
way or the other.

[PeterN]

The download is the same for upgrade or initial purchase. they just give
you a different serial number.

>
> I like LR4 and as I said I like to work with the LR + PS combo. However,
> for now any further CS upgrade via the CC is out of the question for me.
>

I tried LR and found that I didn't use any of its features, except for
the development module, and that is the same as ACR.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

The content aware fill takes a little getting used to. Sometimes I have
to do a clone clean up.

I like the content aware move, and adaptive wide angle. The spot healing
brush has been improved. The burn and dodge tool is actually usable. YMMV


--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

It might be a bit too soon to say whether I "like" the new features, I
said some of the new features "tempted me".

First, CS6 has the 2012 ACR process and makes it consistent with LR4.
Also many of the adjustment tools in ACR 7.1 are an improvement over
earlier versions and the degree of selective adjustment in ACR is
improved.

Next the new crop and straighten tool also align with the same tool in
LR4, but in a slightly different way, and I know I am going to use some
of those features which are implemented differently to the way it is
done in LR4.

The "Adaptive Wide Angle" filter is a very powerful tool and for those
who shoot wide angle it seems to be far better for fixing some WA
issues than using lens profiles, or the "Lens Correction" filter.

For folks such a Peter the new versions of the "liquify" and "Oil
Paint" filters might offer them something else to satistify their
artistic muse. Again, not something I will be looking at as a primary
reason for upgrade.

The new "Field Blur", "Iris Blur", and to a much lesser extent the
"Tilt Blur" filters are something I would use.

The new "Type" menu and text set up is something I can see myself using
from time to time.

There is a more LR like, user-friendly implementation of "Mini-Bridge".

Since this is only my second full day exploring CS6 along with taking
in a few Matt Kloskowski and Julieanne Kost videos, I have further
exploration to make.

While I have been quite satisfied with LR4+CS5, and I could well
survive without the CS6 new stuff, I decided that it was time to buy
the upgrade.

> I've tried "content aware fill" several times and not been all that
> overwhelmed. Too often, it picks up surrounding content that I don't
> want. When it works, it works well.

CS5 had "content aware fill" and certainly you have to be careful in
the way you use it. When it works it works well and can be useful.
The new "content aware" feature in CS6 is "content aware move". I tried
it while going through a check through the stuff which was new to me
and it seems to work as promoted, with all the usual caveats as to
when, where, and how it should be employed. It is something I can't see
myself using too much.


I notice that you made the move to CS6 from CS3 some time ago, and I am
sure that you are still exploring all the changes between those two
versions, which are fare greater than I have to deal with in the move
from CS5.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:52:07 -0700, Savageduck

Right. "Content aware" was new to me. The only "feature" I don't
like in 6, compared to 3, is the way the crop tool works. The new
version is very awkward for me. I'm adapting, though.

I haven't even tried Content Aware Move. It doesn't fit the type of
photography that I do.

I should attempt to work with it, though. It's the kind of thing that
you don't want to be learning the first time it would be really
useful.

[Savageduck]

Here is my "Content Aware Move" experiment. As you can see, my
background was deliberately chosen. I will try a tougher background
next time.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_215.jpg >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[philo]

On 05/11/2013 02:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-11 09:26:27 -0700, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>

>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:27:56 -0500, philo <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:
>> : Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it
>> : broke CS6
>> :
>> : Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.
>>
>> I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can
>> rent its
>> replacement for the rest of your life. :^)
>>
>> Bob
>
> Wrong end of the problem Bob. Philo should have updated his wife's Win7
> by getting her a Mac. ;-)
>

Every computer that me or my wife have owned has been one I've built
myself...or was given to me as "scrap" and I've rebuilt it.
Since one cannot build their own Mac (other than the unreliable
"Hackentosh" route) there is no way I will go out and buy a "ready made"
machine.

(The one exception has been a laptop, which is a whole different story.)

> As far as Photoshop goes, I will be more than done with any further
> updates when Adobe stops a solid upgrade path. For now it appears there
> will be no CS7. So CS6 is the end of the road for me.

I seriously doubt if my wife is going to go beyond CS-6 either...CS-2
would probably have been plenty good.

>
> Adobe is only doing the "Creative Cloud" thing to the CS Suite for now.
> So, until they kill it off I will continue to update Lightroom if the
> features/benefits outweigh to update cost.
>
> The LR - PS combo still fits my workflow comfortably
>
>


--

https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.12 09:07 , philo wrote:

> Every computer that me or my wife have owned has been one I've built
> myself...or was given to me as "scrap" and I've rebuilt it.
> Since one cannot build their own Mac (other than the unreliable
> "Hackentosh" route) there is no way I will go out and buy a "ready made"
> machine.

Over recent years several young people I know have elected to buy ready
made rather than roll their own for two simple reasons:

More bang/$
Warranty

and sometimes "included" software (which is often useless but
occasionally good).

To be sure you can build a very high performance machine more cheaply by
buying parts and slapping them together. But for an ordinary desktop
it's much cheaper to buy ready made.

Hackintosh's are very reliable (in terms of getting a working outcome -
which is what I'm assuming you mean by unreliable) if you use the parts
sets described and the installation tools available (which automate much
of the process). Even less difficult is to hackintosh a laptop as there
is no ambiguity at wrt to components.

An "affordable" entry point for a Mac, esp. for windows desktop users,
is to buy a Mac Mini. Just use existing monitor, keyboard, mouse,
speakers and external drives (if any).

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.11 19:16 , nospam wrote:
> In article <ibWdnXPn4ax1XxPM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> I'll stop at CS5 for PS. I don't have LR.
>>
>> I might even (shudder) get Aperture - though the reviews for it on the
>> Apple site aren't all that inspiring - maybe only bitchers comment?
>
> the main advantage to aperture is its integration with idevices and not
> needing to use iphoto for photos on them. otherwise, lightroom is much
> better.
>
>> What Adobe are attempting do is insane pricewise.
>>
>> It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
>> of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
>> processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
>> users would pay proportionately less.
>
> that's one way to do it.
>
>> It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
>> only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
>> And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...
>
> you can use more than one at a time. launch both illustrator and
> photoshop, for instance.

No shit. But all I do is photo editing related.

>
>> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
>> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
>
> do you own cs3-cs6? if so, it's $10/mo for a single app for the first
> year, then it's the standard $20/mo.

$240 / yr. is too much. I'll stick to CS5. When I bought it (upgrade
from CS3) I burned the install to a DVD and backed it up to an external
drive.

[Alan Browne]

Too much. I'll stop at CS5. End of the Adobe road for me. Over 6
years or so I've spent a little over $800 on CS3/5. Too much already.

> CS6 has some new features which had been tempting me. So during the week
> I made the move, but it was not without having to jump through the
> hoops. Nowhere on the Adobe site is there an obvious means to buy the
> CS5-CS6 upgrade, everything is "Creative Cloud".

I've always found the buying experience at Adobe to be crap.

> I called the 800-585-0774 sale/service number and expressed my
> disappointment that they had made this move to the CC and my inability
> to find a path to the upgrade. I was told that they no longer had DVD
> editions of the upgrade and full versions of CS6 DVDs would only be
> available until inventory was depleted.
>
> Anyway, I stepped up and bought the upgrade. The download method was
> also a bit convoluted, but actually took about 3 minutes. I figured I
> would rather have a copy of CS6 on my HD than pay $20/months until I can
> no longer understand what I am doing with my cameras and/or computer.
> From what I have worked through with CS6 so far, I am glad I made the
> move.
>
> I like LR4 and as I said I like to work with the LR + PS combo. However,
> for now any further CS upgrade via the CC is out of the question for me.


--

[Alan Browne]

Thanks. Interesting. Their webpage isn't very informative, but It's
worth the 45 MB download to check it out.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:

> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>
> www.organicimaging.com

Would not install properly on the Mac.

It (properly) came up with an security warning on trying to install to
the Applications folder, however, the correct thing to do at that point
is "authorize" (temporary Admin/password) the install to the Apps folder.

It then allowed me to choose a folder, but once I selected the user
Applications folder (or any other location like the desktop) the
"select" button remained inactive (grey) - so couldn't install at all.

So I logged in as Admin and installed it from there.

BUT

It wanted to setup the location for temporary work files which defaulted
to a location in the Admin folders - that would not be accessible in the
user space.

And as above, it would allow one to select other locations - but would
not enable the "select" button. Could not change the default to a
generally accessible location.

I ran the program in Admin space. But I have no photos there so I
couldn't select a folder of photos to work on

Logged out of Admin and back into my use account.

The program crashed on launch - presumably because it could not of
course use the temporary folder in the Admin folder space.

I guess the folks at organic don't understand Unix and/or Mac.

1. Their installer is not Mac compliant.
2. Their program is not Unix Admin/User space compliant.

Purged.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:23:09 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>
>> www.organicimaging.com
>
>Would not install properly on the Mac.
>

The article in "Shutterbug" does not bring up platform unless I missed
it. I admit I scanned the article, but since I have CS6 I'm not
interested in the program.

Here's the full review:

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/organic-imaging-easier-road-photo-editing

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.12 11:22 , Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:23:09 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>>
>>> www.organicimaging.com
>>
>> Would not install properly on the Mac.
>>
>
> The article in "Shutterbug" does not bring up platform unless I missed
> it. I admit I scanned the article, but since I have CS6 I'm not
> interested in the program.

They provide DL's for Mac and Windows. The Mac install "recipe" is
pretty standard - and organic are not following it at all.

>
> Here's the full review:
>
> http://www.shutterbug.com/content/organic-imaging-easier-road-photo-editing

Useless if I can't install.

I'm posting the link on a Mac group and see if anyone else gets the same
problem.

[PeterN]

Make sure you save you CS3 install code.

--
PeterN

[philo]

Since all my friends know I will take surplus equipment off their hands...
with the exception of one machine I built for my wife using all new
parts...most of the stuff costs me next to nothing.


I did successfully build a Hackintosh, but applying *one* update broke
the whole thing so I decided not to got that route.

Personally I have used Linux as my main operating system for about the
last three years. (Been using it at least part time for over 12 years)

For my purposes GIMP does the job.


OTOH: My wife has essentially near perfect color vision, so for my
occasional large color prints, I give the image to her and she adjusts
them in Photoshop.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Alan Browne]

Don't need to. The CS5 install is a complete standalone with a separate
license key that is not dependent on the prior disk, install or key.

[Alan Browne]

Cheap bastard!

(that's a compliment for some people I know.)

>
>
> I did successfully build a Hackintosh, but applying *one* update broke
> the whole thing so I decided not to got that route.

When was that? I believe with the more recent install tools (Unibeast)
those sorts of issues are relegated to the past.

> Personally I have used Linux as my main operating system for about the
> last three years. (Been using it at least part time for over 12 years)

I was a part time Linux user from about 2000 thru about 2010. Had it up
on several machines over that time and used it for various things
(mostly documents (OpenOffice)). My son used it a little for school
assignments and browsing.

But I had lots of problems with graphics drivers and could not install a
device specific driver to get both monitors functioning. (Used the
various Linux forums to no avail). Also had issues with another app not
installing at all - can't recall which right now.

I recently had Ubuntu on my Mac (under Fusion) but didn't use it at all
- more just to show people I could run OS X, WinXP and Linux - all at
the same time - and move files between them with drag and drop,
cut/paste, etc. Also could not get it to work with two monitors (didn't
try very hard, I admit).

Deleted the container a couple years ago.

> For my purposes GIMP does the job.

Horrid UI.

> OTOH: My wife has essentially near perfect color vision, so for my
> occasional large color prints, I give the image to her and she adjusts
> them in Photoshop.

That would also need a proper color management chain.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.12 10:23 , Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>
>> www.organicimaging.com
>
> Would not install properly on the Mac.

Duck: Want to try installing it?

[philo]

On 05/12/2013 11:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

> Cheap bastard!
>
> (that's a compliment for some people I know.)
>
>>

<GRIN>


Amazing what I do and do not spend money on...I am a bit of an enigma I
guess.

I buy most of my clothing 2nd hand at the Goodwill store near my
house...most of the time a dress like a slob...
but also have no problem spending a lot of money when I need to.
Not only have I been known to buy an *expensive* suit on occasion...I
even own a tux for fancy affairs.


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/336758_301637443196965_1918185778_o.jpg


Of course , being a slob at heart...you can see my tie is crooked!
My wife is not only an artist, she is a gallery director...so the shot
is not only of me and my wife...but the character "Frank" and the
painting she did of him. Kind woman, my wife is, she lets me curate a
photography show every two years or so.

>>
>> I did successfully build a Hackintosh, but applying *one* update broke
>> the whole thing so I decided not to got that route.
>
> When was that? I believe with the more recent install tools (Unibeast)
> those sorts of issues are relegated to the past.

It was a few years ago...I have never heard of Unibeast.
I did end up buying a used Macbook and it's fine.

>
>> Personally I have used Linux as my main operating system for about the
>> last three years. (Been using it at least part time for over 12 years)
>
> I was a part time Linux user from about 2000 thru about 2010. Had it up
> on several machines over that time and used it for various things
> (mostly documents (OpenOffice)). My son used it a little for school
> assignments and browsing.
>

I actually have MS Word running under Wine...due to compatibility issues
I only use OO for documents I do not intend to share...such as "print
out" only

> But I had lots of problems with graphics drivers and could not install a
> device specific driver to get both monitors functioning. (Used the
> various Linux forums to no avail). Also had issues with another app not
> installing at all - can't recall which right now.

I stick with all nVidia graphics and have not had any problems

>
> I recently had Ubuntu on my Mac (under Fusion) but didn't use it at all
> - more just to show people I could run OS X, WinXP and Linux - all at
> the same time - and move files between them with drag and drop,
> cut/paste, etc. Also could not get it to work with two monitors (didn't
> try very hard, I admit).
>
> Deleted the container a couple years ago.
>
>> For my purposes GIMP does the job.
>
> Horrid UI.

I agree. I gave up on it many times but finally got it figured out.
Once I did, I could not see why I had such a problem with it...
but like most others, I sure did.

>
>> OTOH: My wife has essentially near perfect color vision, so for my
>> occasional large color prints, I give the image to her and she adjusts
>> them in Photoshop.
>
> That would also need a proper color management chain.
>

Yeah...the wife is great with Photoshop...so I let her do it.
I just keep the machines running.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ibWdnXPn4ax1XxPM...@giganews.com>,
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...

>
> On 2013.05.11 15:41 , Savageduck wrote:
> > On 2013-05-11 09:26:27 -0700, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:27:56 -0500, philo <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:
> >> : Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it
> >> : broke CS6
> >> :
> >> : Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.
> >>
> >> I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can
> >> rent its
> >> replacement for the rest of your life. :^)
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > Wrong end of the problem Bob. Philo should have updated his wife's Win7
> > by getting her a Mac. ;-)
> >
> > As far as Photoshop goes, I will be more than done with any further
> > updates when Adobe stops a solid upgrade path. For now it appears there
> > will be no CS7. So CS6 is the end of the road for me.
> >
> > Adobe is only doing the "Creative Cloud" thing to the CS Suite for now.
> > So, until they kill it off I will continue to update Lightroom if the
> > features/benefits outweigh to update cost.
> >
> > The LR - PS combo still fits my workflow comfortably
>
>

> I'll stop at CS5 for PS. I don't have LR.
>
> I might even (shudder) get Aperture - though the reviews for it on the
> Apple site aren't all that inspiring - maybe only bitchers comment?
>

> What Adobe are attempting do is insane pricewise.

How? Retail on CS6 Master Collection was about $2500. At $50/month you
can use it for about 5 years before you're up to the retail price. By
the time five years have come along you'll probably be ready to upgrade
to the next version, which upgrade would have cost $1200 or so, so now
you're out to 7 years or so before you've spent more on rent than you
would on purchase. I don't see this as being "insane".

> It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
> of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
> processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
> users would pay proportionately less.
>

> It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
> only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
> And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...

How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
software?

> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).

A single-app membership is $19.99/month.

[J. Clarke]

In article <9smto81gi2maotgf0...@4ax.com>, b...@1776.COM
says...

The thing that bothers me is that if you're a working photographer and
get into financial difficulties, as sometimes happens for people who
work as independents, you can end up without the tools to do the work
you need to put food on the table. That's my real objection to the
rental model. From a cost viewpoint it's rather appealing.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-12 09:55:46 -0700, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:

> On 2013.05.12 10:23 , Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>>
>>> www.organicimaging.com
>>
>> Would not install properly on the Mac.
>
> Duck: Want to try installing it?

Not really now that I have CS6 on my Mac and MBP, but I might just take
a look and report back.

>> It (properly) came up with an security warning on trying to install to
>> the Applications folder, however, the correct thing to do at that point
>> is "authorize" (temporary Admin/password) the install to the Apps folder.
>>
>> It then allowed me to choose a folder, but once I selected the user
>> Applications folder (or any other location like the desktop) the
>> "select" button remained inactive (grey) - so couldn't install at all.
>>
>> So I logged in as Admin and installed it from there.
>>
>> BUT
>>
>> It wanted to setup the location for temporary work files which defaulted
>> to a location in the Admin folders - that would not be accessible in the
>> user space.
>>
>> And as above, it would allow one to select other locations - but would
>> not enable the "select" button. Could not change the default to a
>> generally accessible location.
>>
>> I ran the program in Admin space. But I have no photos there so I
>> couldn't select a folder of photos to work on
>>
>> Logged out of Admin and back into my use account.
>>
>> The program crashed on launch - presumably because it could not of
>> course use the temporary folder in the Admin folder space.
>>
>> I guess the folks at organic don't understand Unix and/or Mac.
>>
>> 1. Their installer is not Mac compliant.
>> 2. Their program is not Unix Admin/User space compliant.
>>
>> Purged.


--

Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-12 11:27:32 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2013-05-12 09:55:46 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 2013.05.12 10:23 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>>>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>>>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>>>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>>>
>>>> www.organicimaging.com
>>>
>>> Would not install properly on the Mac.
>>
>> Duck: Want to try installing it?
>
> Not really now that I have CS6 on my Mac and MBP, but I might just take
> a look and report back.

OK. The report.

The .dmg download was uneventful.
The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an
Apple compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The
two stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.
The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"
folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all Java.
The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.

Here is the manual. This thing seems to be very Windowsish:
< http://www.organicimaging.com/sites/default/files/downloads/manual_en.pdf >
All it seems capable of is a set of basic
exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments.

As Mac user, if I did not want to spend the $$$ on CS5/6 I would prefer
to pick up PSE11 or Pixelmator (which isn't a bad deal).
< http://www.pixelmator.com/ >

I can't see a need for Organic Imaging in my future, so I didn't bother
to open an account. For now it has been returned to the ether.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.12 15:20 , Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-12 11:27:32 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2013-05-12 09:55:46 -0700, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>>
>>> On 2013.05.12 10:23 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>>>>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>>>>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>>>>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>>>>
>>>>> www.organicimaging.com
>>>>
>>>> Would not install properly on the Mac.
>>>
>>> Duck: Want to try installing it?
>>
>> Not really now that I have CS6 on my Mac and MBP, but I might just
>> take a look and report back.
>
> OK. The report.
>
> The .dmg download was uneventful.
> The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an Apple
> compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The two
> stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.

2 stage? I had the dmg, opened that and ran the installer. See my
other report for what happened after.

> The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"

Do you work in an account with admin privileges?

> folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
> Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all
> Java.
> The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.

That makes it useless to me.

[Alan Browne]

It may indeed work for people who use all aspects of it frequently. But
it's a poor model for amateurs to use.

>> It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
>> of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
>> processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
>> users would pay proportionately less.
>>
>> It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
>> only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
>> And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...
>
> How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
> software?

I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
model? No.

I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?

(My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).

>
>> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
>> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
>
> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.

Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
be about $6 month.

Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.

Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-12 13:25:22 -0700, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:

> On 2013.05.12 15:20 , Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-05-12 11:27:32 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-12 09:55:46 -0700, Alan Browne
>>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2013.05.12 10:23 , Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2013.05.11 19:57 , Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then take a look at "Organic Imaging" by Elpical Software. Take a
>>>>>> free test drive on 250 images, and then pay 12.5 cents per image for
>>>>>> up to 5,000 images per month. "Shutterbug" magazine gave it a good
>>>>>> review*, but I haven't tried it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.organicimaging.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Would not install properly on the Mac.
>>>>
>>>> Duck: Want to try installing it?
>>>
>>> Not really now that I have CS6 on my Mac and MBP, but I might just
>>> take a look and report back.
>>
>> OK. The report.
>>
>> The .dmg download was uneventful.
>> The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an Apple
>> compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The two
>> stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.
>
> 2 stage? I had the dmg, opened that and ran the installer. See my
> other report for what happened after.

When I said 2 stage, I was referring to the two separate inquiries in
the install dialog for placement/location of the App and
placement/location of the "Organic Imaging" work files folder, rather
than just letting an Apple compliant installer do its thing.

>> The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"
>
> Do you work in an account with admin privileges?

Yup! As silly as that might be to some, I am the only one using this
Mac. My MBP and my old G4 PowerBook Pro my "Step-daughter from Hell" is
using, have separated Admin and user accounts for all the obvious
reasons.

>> folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
>> Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all
>> Java.
>> The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.
>
> That makes it useless to me.

As it is for me.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

Bad boy. I'm the only one using this mac but I run non-admin. Whenever
there's an install or whatever it's easy enough to authenticate (except
in the current case).

It's just the "right" way. It's the "Unix" way!

But no, you're a southwest-US-I-don't-follow-no-stinkin-rules kind of dude.

Earlier today I sent a copy of my install report to Organic.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.12 12:56 , philo wrote:
> On 05/12/2013 11:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Cheap bastard!
>>
>> (that's a compliment for some people I know.)
>>
>>>
>
>
> <GRIN>
>
>
> Amazing what I do and do not spend money on...I am a bit of an enigma I
> guess.
>
> I buy most of my clothing 2nd hand at the Goodwill store near my
> house...most of the time a dress like a slob...
> but also have no problem spending a lot of money when I need to.
> Not only have I been known to buy an *expensive* suit on occasion...I
> even own a tux for fancy affairs.
>
>
> https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/336758_301637443196965_1918185778_o.jpg

What's that lovely lady doing with you two slobs?

>
>
>
> Of course , being a slob at heart...you can see my tie is crooked!
> My wife is not only an artist, she is a gallery director...so the shot
> is not only of me and my wife...but the character "Frank" and the
> painting she did of him. Kind woman, my wife is, she lets me curate a
> photography show every two years or so.

Too kind!

[nospam]

In article <201305121220117987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.

i don't know what you did, but according to them, it does not support
raw at all.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-12 13:55:02 -0700, Alan Browne

I suppose.

> It's just the "right" way. It's the "Unix" way!
>
> But no, you're a southwest-US-I-don't-follow-no-stinkin-rules kind of dude.

SouthWest!!?
California is about as West as you can get in the lower 48. I suppose
you could include Southern California as part of the South West, but we
in the Central Coast and Northern California try our best to
disassociate ourselves from the SoCal, Nevada and Arizona mob.
Geographers, wiki-folks and Canadians will probably disagree and lump
all of California into that category. I don't think of San Luis Obispo
County as being part of the South West.

The California Central Coast is a sort of "Rules! What do you mean
rules dude?" kind of area, though I have had to modify that thinking
from time to time due to work requirements and job description prior to
retirement.
Remember, this is the land of the "Whatever?!" laid back "Dudeist".
< http://db.tt/6M2YnFK5 >

> Earlier today I sent a copy of my install report to Organic.

That response should be interesting.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

I checked the support files folder and amongst all the bits and pieces
there, they have a setup for CR2. That is as far as I went with this
useless App before deleting it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

Sorry to have lumped you in there - but the
"I-don't-follow-no-stinkin-rules" part surely fits like a glove.

>
>> Earlier today I sent a copy of my install report to Organic.
>
> That response should be interesting.

More like non-existent.

[nospam]

In article <201305121430208930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.
> >
> > i don't know what you did, but according to them, it does not support
> > raw at all.
>
> I checked the support files folder and amongst all the bits and pieces
> there, they have a setup for CR2. That is as far as I went with this
> useless App before deleting it.

that's odd. i watched the demo video:

<http://www.organicimaging.com/content/organic-imaging-quickstart-tutori
al>

skip to 4:55, where twice he says camera raw files are not accepted.

[Savageduck]

None the less it is something I am not going to be using regardless of
its non-RAW capabilities. I doubt that it will appeal to many folks in
this NG.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[philo]

On 05/12/2013 03:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
pg
>>
>
> What's that lovely lady doing with you two slobs?
>
>>

It's all in the personality :)

>>
>>
>> Of course , being a slob at heart...you can see my tie is crooked!
>> My wife is not only an artist, she is a gallery director...so the shot
>> is not only of me and my wife...but the character "Frank" and the
>> painting she did of him. Kind woman, my wife is, she lets me curate a
>> photography show every two years or so.
>
> Too kind!
>

My 3rd one will be next year.

However the years really past by fast and we are both long term planners.

Last year when I gave my wife a calendar in January...
a few days later she had the year planned already and honestly asked me
if I could get her a calendar for the following year.

[PeterN]

On 5/12/2013 12:56 PM, philo wrote:
> On 05/12/2013 11:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Cheap bastard!
>>
>> (that's a compliment for some people I know.)
>>
>>>
>
>
> <GRIN>
>
>
> Amazing what I do and do not spend money on...I am a bit of an enigma I
> guess.
>
> I buy most of my clothing 2nd hand at the Goodwill store near my
> house...most of the time a dress like a slob...
> but also have no problem spending a lot of money when I need to.
> Not only have I been known to buy an *expensive* suit on occasion...I
> even own a tux for fancy affairs.
>
>
> https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/336758_301637443196965_1918185778_o.jpg
>

You have a discinct resemblence to Groucho Marx.

<http://media.photobucket.com/user/scoobyfro/media/groucho.gif.html?filters[term]=groucho%20marx&filters[primary]=images&filters[secondary]=videos&sort=1&o=17>

<http://preview.tinyurl.com/cwzzv6a>





--
PeterN

[philo]

On 05/12/2013 07:06 PM, PeterN wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 12:56 PM, philo wrote:
>> On 05/12/2013 11:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Cheap bastard!
>>>
>>> (that's a compliment for some people I know.)
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> <GRIN>
>>
>>
>> Amazing what I do and do not spend money on...I am a bit of an enigma I
>> guess.
>>
>> I buy most of my clothing 2nd hand at the Goodwill store near my
>> house...most of the time a dress like a slob...
>> but also have no problem spending a lot of money when I need to.
>> Not only have I been known to buy an *expensive* suit on occasion...I
>> even own a tux for fancy affairs.
>>
>>
>> https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/336758_301637443196965_1918185778_o.jpg
>>
>>
> You have a discinct resemblence to Groucho Marx.
>

And I have sarcastic humor like him too...

only no cigar!

[J. Clarke]

In article <7s2dnTuAtI5EZxLM...@giganews.com>,
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...

It doesn't just work for people who "use all aspects of it". Using two
or three aspects of it is fine.

> >> It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
> >> of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
> >> processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
> >> users would pay proportionately less.
> >>
> >> It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
> >> only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
> >> And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...
> >
> > How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
> > software?
>
> I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
> model? No.

You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?

> I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?

The same.

> (My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
> Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
> the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).
>
>
> >
> >> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
> >> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
> >
> > A single-app membership is $19.99/month.
>
> Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
> about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
> will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
> be about $6 month.
>
> Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.
>
> Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
> calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).

Sounds like you're not really the target market.

[Whisky-dave]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:07:45 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:

>
> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.

If buying this product is it for use on only ONE computer or only ONE OS.
For me I'd say that buying such a thing should mean you can use it on as many computers as you own or use,provided you're only running one copy at a time.
How often does it phone home or is it launched on-line in which case if I don;t have a network connection or a relible one then I can't use the software I'm renting.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ebdd2667-e91a-43a2...@googlegroups.com>,
whisk...@gmail.com says...

"Yes, you can use Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers
at once, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated
with the Creative Cloud membership. See the product license agreements
page for more information."

Whatever page you are on that mentions "buying" has nothing to do with
Creative Cloud since you cannot buy Creative Cloud, only rent it.

If you were actually researching instead of just parading your ignorance
you would know that it phones home once a month.

[Savageduck]

...and if you have failed to pay the "rent" through that period you
will be given notice of that failure with a demand for payment within a
specified period. Fail to meet that demand and the downloaded CC
modules will be disabled.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.12 22:40 , J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <7s2dnTuAtI5EZxLM...@giganews.com>,
> alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...

>>> How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
>>> software?
>>
>> I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
>> model? No.
>
> You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?

I said 10 with 20 as an example of an outlier. For that matter I do
have a few apps that are quite old and still very useful. (Including
"CoolEdit" which I purchased for about $80 over 10 years ago. Adobe
bought them out and sell the audio package for over $200. I'm quite
pleased that I can keep using the v. from before they bought the co.).

>
>> I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?
>
> The same.

Clarify.

>
>> (My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
>> Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
>> the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
>>>> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
>>>
>>> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.
>>
>> Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
>> about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
>> will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
>> be about $6 month.
>>
>> Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.
>>
>> Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
>> calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).
>
> Sounds like you're not really the target market.

The whole notion of "renting" s/w is not my cup of tea. My use of s/w
varies over time so paying rent for something not being used is not at
all to my liking. Paying for use (work based) would be quite acceptable.

When you rent, for example, a car, you're not only using it to do "work"
but you're tying up capital when the vehicle is parked. Renting it by
the day or week or whatever makes sense. (And whatever mileage charges
or caps may be included).

Renting s/w that is dormant on a machine at given time does not tie up
any Adobe capital. So the notion of renting s/w by the calendar period
is not all that logical for "part time" users.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-13 14:26:27 -0700, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:

> On 2013.05.12 22:40 , J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <7s2dnTuAtI5EZxLM...@giganews.com>,
>> alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
>
>>>> How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
>>>> software?
>>>
>>> I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
>>> model? No.
>>
>> You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?
>
> I said 10 with 20 as an example of an outlier. For that matter I do
> have a few apps that are quite old and still very useful. (Including
> "CoolEdit" which I purchased for about $80 over 10 years ago. Adobe
> bought them out and sell the audio package for over $200. I'm quite
> pleased that I can keep using the v. from before they bought the co.).

On my current Mac my 2001 edition of MS Office X still runs just fine
under OSX 10.6.8. That was first installed on my "Goose-neck lamp" G3
iMac.
MT-NW last updated in 2008, though long in the tooth, still works.

Then PS CS2 is working OK on my G4 PB Pro 17'' (That won't run
CS3/4/5/6). That explained my upgrade to CS3 when I bought my Intel MBP
17''.

Agreed.
The rental model for S/W is not a good idea for the hobbyist.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

Correct. However, renting makes sense for many businesses. Some of the
advantages are:
doesn't tie up capital;
unless they are under a contract, there are no fixed liabilities that
must be disclosed on the balance sheet;
they may be able to vary the applications used on some periodic basis;
(not sure though about that one;) and
all payments are immediately tax deductible.

I am not defending Adobe, indeed I signed a petition to allow a choice.
Graphic houses, have far more influence on Adobe, than us casual users.
OTOH we have more options to go elsewhere, if Adobe gets too frisky.

I wonder how many here, who a pissing and moaning, have actually
contacted Adobe to let their true feelings be known, in a manner that
would convince Adobe that it would be to it's advantage to give us an
option.
--
PeterN

[J. Clarke]

In article <2013051310495350073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

You have 90 days before it deactivates.

[J. Clarke]

In article <E7GdnZVXPe0exwzM...@giganews.com>,
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...

>
> On 2013.05.12 22:40 , J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <7s2dnTuAtI5EZxLM...@giganews.com>,
> > alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
>
> >>> How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
> >>> software?
> >>
> >> I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
> >> model? No.
> >
> > You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?
>
> I said 10 with 20 as an example of an outlier. For that matter I do
> have a few apps that are quite old and still very useful. (Including
> "CoolEdit" which I purchased for about $80 over 10 years ago. Adobe
> bought them out and sell the audio package for over $200. I'm quite
> pleased that I can keep using the v. from before they bought the co.).
>
> >
> >> I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?
> >
> > The same.
>
> Clarify.

You can install on two machines. I don't really see anything to
clarify.

> >> (My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
> >> Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
> >> the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
> >>>> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
> >>>
> >>> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.
> >>
> >> Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
> >> about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
> >> will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
> >> be about $6 month.
> >>
> >> Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.
> >>
> >> Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
> >> calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).
> >
> > Sounds like you're not really the target market.
>
> The whole notion of "renting" s/w is not my cup of tea. My use of s/w
> varies over time so paying rent for something not being used is not at
> all to my liking. Paying for use (work based) would be quite acceptable.
>
> When you rent, for example, a car, you're not only using it to do "work"
> but you're tying up capital when the vehicle is parked. Renting it by
> the day or week or whatever makes sense. (And whatever mileage charges
> or caps may be included).
>
> Renting s/w that is dormant on a machine at given time does not tie up
> any Adobe capital. So the notion of renting s/w by the calendar period
> is not all that logical for "part time" users.

But buying at Adobe prices isn't all that logical either.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.13 23:08 , J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <E7GdnZVXPe0exwzM...@giganews.com>,
> alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...

>> The whole notion of "renting" s/w is not my cup of tea. My use of s/w
>> varies over time so paying rent for something not being used is not at
>> all to my liking. Paying for use (work based) would be quite acceptable.
>>
>> When you rent, for example, a car, you're not only using it to do "work"
>> but you're tying up capital when the vehicle is parked. Renting it by
>> the day or week or whatever makes sense. (And whatever mileage charges
>> or caps may be included).
>>
>> Renting s/w that is dormant on a machine at given time does not tie up
>> any Adobe capital. So the notion of renting s/w by the calendar period
>> is not all that logical for "part time" users.
>
> But buying at Adobe prices isn't all that logical either.

Hobbyists are willing to pay a premium for quality. OTOH, we expect to
benefit from the quality over a longer time period.

So for the term that I buy their products, it is quite logical.

But I'll still be running CS5 in 2 years. And 5. Probably even 10. So
the "rent" will be going down continuously. See the relevant paragraph
above ... I'm at $11/month and it's only going down. So the cashflow
model that Adobe have adopted will have to depend on others.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:20:11 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
:
: OK. The report [on "Organic Imaging"].
:
: The .dmg download was uneventful.

: The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an
: Apple compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The
: two stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.
: The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"
: folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
: Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all Java.
: The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.
:
: Here is the manual. This thing seems to be very Windowsish:
: < http://www.organicimaging.com/sites/default/files/downloads/manual_en.pdf >
: All it seems capable of is a set of basic
: exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments.

If that's all it does, and its only RAW mode is .CR2, you might as well use
Canon's Digital Photo Professional. It does those things and more; it comes
free with a Canon camera; and there's a version for the Mac (although I've
used it only on Windows computers). It isn't perfect, but it does what it does
pretty well. One thing it has, that some here have complained about other
editors not having, is a very good aspect-ratio-based cropping tool.

Bob

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.19 08:25 , Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:20:11 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> :
> : OK. The report [on "Organic Imaging"].
> :
> : The .dmg download was uneventful.
> : The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an
> : Apple compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The
> : two stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.
> : The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"
> : folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
> : Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all Java.
> : The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.
> :
> : Here is the manual. This thing seems to be very Windowsish:
> : < http://www.organicimaging.com/sites/default/files/downloads/manual_en.pdf >
> : All it seems capable of is a set of basic
> : exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments.
>
> If that's all it does, and its only RAW mode is .CR2, you might as well use
> Canon's Digital Photo Professional. It does those things and more; it comes
> free with a Canon camera; and there's a version for the Mac (although I've

In the end the app does not support any raw; in the end the installer is
not correctly done for Macs; in the end what the app actually does is
pretty thin beer; in the end .... the end.

[Savageduck]

If all you have available and don't want to spend additional $$$, then
DPP will get your images through RAW(CR2) conversion and some
adjustment. I have a copy which came with my G11, and I have used it,
and I can confirm that it works. However, when compared with what is
available for the Mac other than Photoshop it is not a great performer.
Both Lightroom and PSE are far superior to DPP and I would use either
of those, separately or together before depending on DPP.

For the Mac user who wants an Adobe free workflow, there are two
excellent image editor values in "Pixelmator" and "Acorn".
< http://www.pixelmator.com/ >
< http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/ >

...and if you care to spent a bit more, DxO is always an interesting
offering. Different, but interesting
< http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <sgghp8dlf7fh2s24c...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> If that's all it does, and its only RAW mode is .CR2,

it doesn't do *any* raw at all.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:31:39 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

DPP has evolved considerably over the several years I've been using it. I
don't know enough about Lightroom to question your conclusion, but any
comments regarding DPP should be based on familiarity with the most recent
version.

Bob