Adobe gone crazy?
Focus
new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox, Internet
Explorer and Opera.
I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable" helpdesk
workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the window of
FF.
Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
"Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have
the appropriate permissions to access the item."
I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
Way to go Adobe!
What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
don't leave me in misery...
Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
cracked version?
I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
clue...
Thanks!
--
Focus
tony cooper
Not that it is the probable cause of your problem, but most download
sites of extensive programs tell you to turn off your anti-virus
protection during the download. Anti-virus programs often screw-up
downloads.
If you have confidence in the site you are downloading from (and you
should if you are downloading), you should feel comfortable turning
off the anti-virus during the download and install steps.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Wally
>After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have a
>new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox, Internet
>Explorer and Opera.
>I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable" helpdesk
>workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the window of
>FF.
>Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
>"Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have
>the appropriate permissions to access the item."
>I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
>Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
>Way to go Adobe!
>What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
>screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
>don't leave me in misery...
If the file tests positive for a virus, don't run it. (DUH).
Most likely AVG has locked the file to prevent dufuses like you from
running a virus-infected file.
Wally
Frank Arthur
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:I56dnUTQXcOQ_uLU...@novis.pt...
have worked on most computers for most users- Why do you feel Adobe is
at fault?
SteveG
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have a
> new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox, Internet
> Explorer and Opera.
SG: Then I would suggest there's something wrong with your computer, or
maybe your firewall/AVG. I downloaded CS4 earlier this evening for a
client using Firefox running under Vista and have previously dl'd it for
another client using IE on an XP machine. It's also sat on my own PC
having been dl's using Firefox. Are you actually dl'ing from the Adobe
web site or some third party?
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable" helpdesk
> workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the window of
> FF.
SG: What text? Did you use the Adobe downloader? If not then it's highly
likely that what you downloaded is gibberish. Have you set Firefox to
allow Java?
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have
> the appropriate permissions to access the item."
SG: Where do you see the setup file? To initiate the installation you
have to open (i.e. double-click) on the .exe file that downloaded - but
it's not called setup.
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
SG: Again, what setup file? My AVG (Internet Security Suite) didn't flag
anything out of the ordinary.
> Way to go Adobe!
SG: I don't think this is Adobe's fault ;-)
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
SG: LOL ... that must be Bill Gates influence showing through :-)
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...
>
SG: When you have the two files downloaded from Adobe (1 x .exe and 1 x
.7z) just double-click on the .exe and it should install. Took less than
5 minutes earlier.
--
Regards
Steve G
J. Clarke
So you're saying that the version on the Adobe site is virus infected?
While not impossible one would expect them to have fixed it by now.
More likely AVG is detecting a false positive.
My experience with antivirus programs is that one is far more likely
to have one's machine trashed by an antivirus program than by a virus.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Wally
The OP did not say that the file was downloaded from Adobe.
Your statement about antivirus programs is out of date. The virus and
other malware scene has changed much in the last few years. IMHO you
really need to take your AV software seriously.
Wally
George Kerby
On 1/27/09 1:39 PM, in article I56dnUTQXcOQ_uLU...@novis.pt,
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have a
> new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox, Internet
> Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable" helpdesk
> workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the window of
> FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have
> the appropriate permissions to access the item."
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
> Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work?
Yep.
Give that viri-laden piece o'shit to chairty an get a *real* computer...
Wally
>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:39:56 -0000, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
>AVG is famous for reporting false virii. Kaspersky is the best
>antivirus program. If you want to go the cracked route CS4 is now
>posted in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities. Virus checked thoroughly
>and it is clean.
>
>Here's a direct link to get an NZB file for it:
>http://binsearch.info/?b=Adobe.Photoshop.CS4.Extended.v11.0.with.Keygen&g=alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities&p=Krypto%40nobullshit.com+%28Krypto%29&max=250
>
>Remember you *must* block it with your firewall after install or it
>will reject your serial eventually. CS4 phones home and checks the
>serial so it must be blocked.
>
>PS: for those people who are no doubt going to rag about downloading
>warez. Pfft!
>Go spend your hard earned money, I don't really care!
Up to you, but much of the pirated stuff contains viruses and trojans.
There are so many of these now, and so many variants, it can take a
couple of weeks of virus definition updates before the AV will find
the contamination. If it tests clean now, that means little... check
it again in a couple weeks.
Wally
Charles
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:glnsl...@news4.newsguy.com...
Antivirus programs often emulate what they propose to prevent/cure. Sloooow
machines, interference with basic operations, consumption of user time and
patience ... in brief, a major PITA!
However, I would never expose any computer that I cared even a little about
to the Internet without one.
Kind of like seat belts. All kinds of problems with them but most folks
have come to realize that they are indeed very prudent as a safety feature.
I could go on about condoms and other technological wonders, but I'd better
not.
^Tems^
After a title of Adobe gone crazy and the first line "After downloading
PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have a
new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in" I think it is
pretty safe to assume he is talking about downloading it from Adobe
John McWilliams
George Kerby wrote:
>> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work?
> Yep.
>
> Give that viri-laden piece o'shit to chairty an get a *real* computer...
>
> http://www.apple.com/imac/
No, really, the whole company has gone over the edge. Sell short now!
Make millions.
Same with Apple. With his Steveness ailing, another great short sale....
yeah.
But their products are top rank, as are Adobe's.
--
lsmft
Nervous Nick
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:39:56 -0000, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
> antivirus program. If you want to go the cracked route CS4 is now
> posted in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities. Virus checked thoroughly
> and it is clean.
>
>
> Remember you *must* block it with your firewall after install or it
> will reject your serial eventually. CS4 phones home and checks the
> serial so it must be blocked.
>
> PS: for those people who are no doubt going to rag about downloading
> warez. Pfft!
> Go spend your hard earned money, I don't really care!
>
Isn't it illegal to do it that way?
--
YOP...
Focus
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cbpun499mcfaptl3j...@4ax.com...
Thanks Tony and all others. I just read this after I found the problem
myself: it was indeed AVG that caused the problem. To make things more
complicated: I turned it off, but I found the program refused to shut down:
when I used CTRL-ALT-DEL I saw AVG still in memory and even stopping the
process didn't work. So I had to uninstall it to get PS to run setup. After
I did, the icon of setup changed too!
So now it runs, but the download manager is still crap. I just copy the line
in the Acasomething DL Manager, paste it in FF and then cut the first file
and then the second file. This way there is no DLM used and it's downloaded
as normal programs. It would be a heck of lot easier if Adobe just wrote:
download these 2 files instead of complicating things with that awful DLM.
Thanks again and if anyone has problems: don't ask Adobe ;-)
--
Focus
Wally
>>other malware scene has changed much in the last few years. .
>>
>>Wally
>
>Wally
>
>I'm afraid it is you who is out of date and out of touch. AVG is known
>throughout the net for giving false positives.
>I have used all of the major AV programs and Kaspersky is best,
>followed by NOD32. I would not have AVG on my computer.
>I am a programmer so I know a fair bit about software.
>
>IMHO *you* really need to take your AV software seriously and maybe
>know a little about what it is that you write about!
Well, nya nya, I'm a progammer too. And my daddy is also a programmer,
and he's probably a better programmer than you.
Yes, AVG has had some well-publicized false alarms lately, but that
doesn't mean you can dismiss those just because false positives
happen. Most users have no way of telling a real positive from a false
positive.
But there is a great danger of a frustrated user disabling his AV or
firewall software because it is obstructing what he wants to do. And
I've seen plenty of polluted computers as a result.
Wally
who knows a lot about software because he's a PROGRAMMER.
dwight
"Krypto" <Kry...@rolling-one.com> wrote in message
news:pqdvn413b1mgn75m0...@4ax.com...
>
> Seriously, if you use APCS4 in any commercial capacity I would
> definetly recommend that you buy it.
>
> If you are like me, a casual home user, then save several hundred
> bucks and get it free. Nobody is going catch or punish you for using
> it. Think of it as a long term evaluation period.
>
> Does Abobe lose any money cuz I use it for free? No! I would never buy
> the program because it is too expensive for home use, so no, they
> didn't lose any money with me. Adobe, Microsoft etc. mostly care about
> commercial users of their products. I have never heard of any home
> user being prosecuted.
>
> Last, have you ever downloaded an mp3? Your kids maybe? That is also
> somewhat illegal. Yet people do it. Do you think your kids are
> criminals for having a few mp3s?
>
> I know, next the morality argument. No problem there for me I have no
> moral problem with keeping the money in my pocket. Maybe I'll save up
> and buy a new lens :-)
>
> Ok, now you outraged people can flame me. I love it. Always good for a
> laugh!!
>
> Ps: Pssst!! want the serial number for NX2?
As Krypto said, but in a LOT more words - yes, it is illegal.
dwight
dwight
> a new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox,
> Internet Explorer and Opera.
Maybe I'm crazy, but for $700, I can wait for Adobe to ship me the BOX.
Download? No, thanks.
But now I'm curious. Did you make a backup copy? What if you need to do a
clean reinstall some day?
dwight
tony cooper
>
>But there is a great danger of a frustrated user disabling his AV or
>firewall software because it is obstructing what he wants to do. And
>I've seen plenty of polluted computers as a result.
Be more specific. Are you saying that a computer can be harmed by
turning off the anti-virus program during the download and install
from a site like Adobe's?
Assuming the anti-virus is re-opened immediately after these two
actions, what harm can befall the computer?
Mark Thomas
that while the av is off, s/he doesn't do anything silly, like download
something else from somewhere else...
It's a bit like taking the battery out of your fire alarm when you burn
the toast.
David J. Littleboy
The firewall should be left on all the time. If one doesn't click email
attachements, I'm not convinced that AV software is necessary. (If one is
the only one using your own computer.)
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
tony cooper
Most programs - Adobe specifically - require you to re-start the
computer after installing a program. The re-start would automatically
re-enable the anti-virus.
John McWilliams
Unless, of course, you are running a Mac. Then AV software is really
unnecessary, and you don't need to sweat it if the firewall is down.
--
john mcwilliams
Ray Fischer
>"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
>> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to
>> get a cracked version?
>> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have
>> a clue...
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>Considering that Adobe has distributed thousands of CS4 downloads that
>have worked on most computers for most users- Why do you feel Adobe is
>at fault?
Have you tried it lately?
This is what I get:
Access denied
We're sorry, you are not allowed access to the service you requested.
If you feel you should have access, please contact the appropriate
authorities and give them your IP address: 99.52.200.137
Thank you for your patience.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alfred Molon
>
> Thanks Tony and all others. I just read this after I found the problem
> myself: it was indeed AVG that caused the problem. To make things more
> complicated: I turned it off, but I found the program refused to shut down:
> when I used CTRL-ALT-DEL I saw AVG still in memory and even stopping the
> process didn't work. So I had to uninstall it to get PS to run setup. After
> I did, the icon of setup changed too!
You have to rename the .exe of the AV process, then stop the process.
Once you finished installing the Adobe stuff, you give the .exe of the
AV its old name and restart the AV software.
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
Alfred Molon
> I'm afraid it is you who is out of date and out of touch. AVG is known
> throughout the net for giving false positives.
> I have used all of the major AV programs and Kaspersky is best,
> followed by NOD32.
I read a few days ago somewhere a report od a guy who had to uninstall
Kaspersky because it was slowing down his CS4 to almost zero.
Alfred Molon
> illegal? That's just a large sick bird.
>
> Seriously, if you use APCS4 in any commercial capacity I would
> definetly recommend that you buy it.
>
> If you are like me, a casual home user, then save several hundred
> bucks and get it free. Nobody is going catch or punish you for using
> it. Think of it as a long term evaluation period.
>
> Does Abobe lose any money cuz I use it for free? No! I would never buy
> the program because it is too expensive for home use, so no, they
> didn't lose any money with me. Adobe, Microsoft etc. mostly care about
> commercial users of their products. I have never heard of any home
> user being prosecuted.
Yes, you'd never buy PS, but for home users there is PS Elements, which
costs only around USD 99 (or around that) and has all features a non-pro
needs.
Ron Hunter
>> new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox, Internet
>> Explorer and Opera.
>> workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the window of
>> FF.
>> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
>> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have
>> the appropriate permissions to access the item."
>> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
>> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
>> Way to go Adobe!
>> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
>> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
>> don't leave me in misery...
>
>
> Most likely AVG has locked the file to prevent dufuses like you from
> running a virus-infected file.
>
Even MORE likely is that AVG is giving a false positive, and locking the
file. Sometimes those setup programs do things that are similar to
virus actions, and thus get flagged as virus inclusions by the AV
program's 'heuristic' module.
Ron Hunter
a machine that runs about 20% faster, and in the two years prior to
uninstalling it, the said AV program (Norton) hadn't detected a single
virus because, I:
1. Am very careful what I download, and from where,
2. I have a firewall program with various protection features that trap
certainly types of virus files before the AV program even sees them.
Ron Hunter
I think the possibility of a virus in something you downloaded from
Adobe's website is about the same as you being hit by lightning while in
a cave. And if such DID happen, it would probably make the front page
of most newspapers.
AV programs (all of them) DO sometimes come up with false positives. If
this happens on a website of a reliable company, and you don't hear
about any such news in a day or two, it would be safe to turn off the AV
for that download. Be sure to turn it back on before you do anything
else, though.
Noons
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have a
> new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox, Internet
> Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable" helpdesk
> workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the window of
> FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have
> the appropriate permissions to access the item."
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
> Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
>
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
Their latest Reader (9) suffers from a similar problem if downloaded with
Firefox and installed in XP Home. DAMHKIT.
Just download the darn thing with IE and hope for the best. Of course, assuming
you're a windoze cavalier.
If not, just keep knocking on their support door: about time they got into their
thick heads there is something else in the world other than just M$.
Ron Hunter
I know that people do take the batteries out of their fire alarms, and
forget to put new ones in, but I always leave the fire alarm on the
kitchen counter until I get a new battery. Usually I have a new battery
'in stock' (my wife buys batteries when a good sale comes along), and
just install one immediately. When you get old, you learn a few ways to
deal, safely, with a slowly deteriorating memory.....
Ron Hunter
A good AV program will also check any file that is added, or updated,
regardless of source, so the email entry route is not really the main
avenue of invasion for some users who routinely put other's USB drives
into their computer, for instance.
Ron Hunter
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:glnsl...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Wally wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:39:56 -0000, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
>
>> My experience with antivirus programs is that one is far more likely
>> to have one's machine trashed by an antivirus program than by a virus.
>
> machines, interference with basic operations, consumption of user time and
> patience ... in brief, a major PITA!
>
> However, I would never expose any computer that I cared even a little about
> to the Internet without one.
>
> Kind of like seat belts. All kinds of problems with them but most folks
> have come to realize that they are indeed very prudent as a safety feature.
> I could go on about condoms and other technological wonders, but I'd better
> not.
>
>
I operate three computers, none of which has an AV program on it. I
have been using Windows OS since 1995 and have never had a virus, even
though I rarely have an AV program installed. Good operating practices,
and a good firewall program pretty much make an AV program redundant.
Rich
news:O_adnUNm1us0ix3U...@giganews.com:
Is Adobe still shoehorning in the undisclosed "bonjour" function, or have
they broken ties they have to Apple?
dwight
Not me. I'm one of those fools who makes a living on copyright.
dwight
Chris Malcolm
Unless you're running IE, and especially if you're using your computer
in admin mode. Since those are the out-of-the-box defaults on a lot of
computers, that's what a lot of people are doing.
--
Chris Malcolm
J. Clarke
In any case "firewalls" running on the machine that they are
ostensibly protecting are a joke. More marketing based on fear,
uncertainty, doubt, and in this case ignorance. The firewall goes
_between_ the machine being protected and the rest of the world, with
the idea being that the attack hits the firewall and packets from the
attack never even _get_ to a port on the protected machine.
You can get a real hardware firewall these days for about the same
price as most of the crappy software pretend firewalls.
As for Mac AV software being unnecesary, AV software in general is
unnecessary. Just don't run as root. But Macafee, Norton and the
rest will tell you that your Mac is going to be instantly destroyed by
the thousands of Mac viruses out there if you don't use their
kruftware, just as they claim for Windows. The real difference is
that for some reason Windows users believe them.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
Actually the problem is that people will insist on logging in as
administrator because it's more convenient for them and they've been
brainwashed into thinking that running on a user account makes them
not in charge. I've seen people get angry at the notion of running
from a user account.
There is no helping such folks and they deserve everything that
happens to them.
Vista comes out of the box locked down. I had hoped that this would
finally force the idiot software developers into playing by the
security rules, but apparently not--most of the Vista "problems" that
you hear about are crap software being killed by the security, with
the OS doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Unfortunately it
looks like the "fix" may be to back off the security defaults rather
than telling the idiots "fix your junk".
J. Clarke
> In article <g2bvn4d4phd67ng74...@4ax.com>, Jim says...
>
>> I'm afraid it is you who is out of date and out of touch. AVG is
>> known throughout the net for giving false positives.
>> I have used all of the major AV programs and Kaspersky is best,
>> followed by NOD32.
>
> I read a few days ago somewhere a report od a guy who had to
> uninstall
> Kaspersky because it was slowing down his CS4 to almost zero.
You have to understand--the "best antivirus" is like the "best
cancer".
If you're running XP, get a copy of the XP Administrator's Pocket
Companion and work through it and learn to lock it down, then run from
a user account, not administrator. If you're running Vista just don't
log on as administrator unless you're doing something that requires
it. That will do more for you than all the antivirus kruftware in the
world, and save you money besides.
bowser
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have
> a new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox,
> Internet Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable"
> helpdesk workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in
> the window of FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not
> have the appropriate permissions to access the item."
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
> Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...
I downloaded mine from PC Connection via the UPS download device. Had it up
and running the next day with no problems, and the price included media,
packaging, etc.
Ron Hunter
I won't run my computers from a user account because I do a lot of
maint. work, and I don't want to be restricted as to what I can do on my
own computer. It hasn't been a problem so far.
Ron Hunter
infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of software firewalls,
completely. Yes, some are much better than others, but there are some
good ones, even free versions of them.
ray
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they
> have a new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in:
> Firefox, Internet Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable"
> helpdesk workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in
> the window of FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not
> have the appropriate permissions to access the item." I even tried it
> with administrator and password, but still the same. Also very funny:
> AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!! Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on
> the screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe
> company don't leave me in misery...
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...
>
> Thanks!
Why not try GIMP instead - it's a piece of cake.
John McWilliams
> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
> Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of software firewalls,
> completely. Yes, some are much better than others, but there are some
> good ones, even free versions of them.
Ah, uh, Ron, please name the viruses in the wild that have been "shown"
to damage a Mac. Leaving out hypotheticals.
--
John McWilliams
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
> Mac.
and those require the user to download and install the malware
themselves and provide an admin password so it can do its thing. you
can't 'just get' a mac virus.
nospam
wrote:
> Why not try GIMP instead - it's a piece of cake.
maybe because he wants photoshop.
ray
Well, evidently he has problems getting it.
Ron Hunter
thing is that ANY computer can host malware. It doesn't HAVE to be
self-perpetuating in order to cause you great damage. The malware
writer only has to somehow get the user to load, and run, the software.
The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a very
small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
Ron Hunter
Any you can't 'just get' a Windows virus, either. Something has to be
downloaded (loaded), and RUN.
That's the key, and if you can somehow convince the user to download,
and run the program, being in admin mode, is immaterial.
Ron Hunter
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Any you can't 'just get' a Windows virus, either. Something has to be
> downloaded (loaded), and RUN.
yet that happens automatically to a *lot* of people.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
> >> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
> >> Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of software firewalls,
> >> completely. Yes, some are much better than others, but there are some
> >> good ones, even free versions of them.
> >
> > Ah, uh, Ron, please name the viruses in the wild that have been "shown"
> > to damage a Mac. Leaving out hypotheticals.
> >
> Are you going to maintain that there are NO such viruses?
none that propagate on their own in the wild. there's a few proof of
concepts but they're actually fairly crude.
> The funny
> thing is that ANY computer can host malware. It doesn't HAVE to be
> self-perpetuating in order to cause you great damage. The malware
> writer only has to somehow get the user to load, and run, the software.
that can happen with anything and it doesn't even need to be a personal
computer. people get tricked into giving out their banking information
to phone solicitors or they fall for various scams all the time. not
much you can do about that.
> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a very
> small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
propagates on its own.
J. Clarke
You are aware, are you not, that the same has been true for Windows
since NT 3.5, released in 1994. The difference is that for some
stupid reason Windows users seem to insist on running as root and
Windows software developers seem determined to write their
applications in such a way that it won't run under any account but
root.
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> > and those require the user to download and install the malware
> > themselves and provide an admin password so it can do its thing.
> > you
> > can't 'just get' a mac virus.
>
> You are aware, are you not, that the same has been true for Windows
> since NT 3.5, released in 1994. The difference is that for some
> stupid reason Windows users seem to insist on running as root and
> Windows software developers seem determined to write their
> applications in such a way that it won't run under any account but
> root.
and are you aware that despite mac users running effectively as root
(in os 9 and earlier where any user had full access to any file) and as
admin users in os x (very few set up a secondary user), they *still*
don't get malware without deliberately installing something.
J. Clarke
Believe what you want to. Your real defense is that nobody but
MacNerds really give a damn about Macs. Boring little machines for
boring little people who have nothing more interesting to do in their
lives than brag about their computers.
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a
> >> very small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
> >
> > no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
> > propagates on its own.
>
> Believe what you want to. Your real defense is that nobody but
> MacNerds really give a damn about Macs. Boring little machines for
> boring little people who have nothing more interesting to do in their
> lives than brag about their computers.
in other words, you can't refute it so you resort to derogatory remarks.
btw, apple's sales are outpacing the market itself, so it seems that a
lot more than 'mac nerds' give a damn.
Ron Hunter
and programs to run, this represents a problem. Any user who runs
programs without really knowing what they are, and what they do, or
allows a website to install something on their computer, runs a risk of
loading malware. There is no better AV or firewall than an educated,
and experienced, and skeptical user.
Ron Hunter
Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible WILL
be done, sooner or later. The key is the user, and getting him/her to
install the program in the first place. Should someone ever get a
self-propagating virus working on a Mac, and put it on the internet, the
effect will be devastating.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
agreed, but unfortunately, there are very few such people.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a very
> >> small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
> >
> > no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
> > propagates on its own.
>
> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible WILL
> be done, sooner or later.
and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8 years
(and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a few
lame attempts. where are these so called expert hackers? the first
one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
peers.
nospam
<savag...@savage.net> wrote:
> The real concern with Intel Macs in particular,
that makes no difference. an intel mac running os x is as safe as a
powerpc mac running os x. the vulnerability is not the cpu, but the
operating system.
> is the possibility of being an unwitting
> e-mail vector infecting the PC users they contact when PC e-mail bombs
> are circulated.
only if they run windows, and that will basically only affect their
windows installation.
> So for the most part virus protection SW for Macs is there to provide
> protection for PCs they communicate with.
> One might say an act of civic responsibility. :-)
yep. and that 'protection' can also cause problems. one anti-virus
utility on the mac had a root exploit, so users were actually *more* at
risk with it installed.
Neil Ellwood
> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
> Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of software firewalls,
> completely. Yes, some are much better than others, but there are some
> good ones, even free versions of them.
For anyone using linux the firewall is basically built in - just needs a
script to select and run.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
George Kerby
On 1/28/09 8:25 PM, in article glr4b...@news5.newsguy.com, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
You mean as oppossed to people who have to search the net for 'drivers', or
some such shitty afterthoughts to make an external hard drive enclosure be
seen by the operating system? The same people who are faced with a frozen
program? Those whose mice just stop functioning? The people who get the
"blue screen of death"? Or how about a shiity file system: "Where did it put
that?" Don't you just love the constant nag "Are you SURE you want to do
that?". And the constant struggle with viri? Yes, those people have
excellent lives, because they have entire departments set aside with
full-time geeks to keep their PeeCees stumbling along.
I am happy to have my "boring little machine", thank you...
George Kerby
On 1/29/09 2:45 AM, in article
rNSdnSlApuhd8RzU...@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
Ahh, but the beauty is that IT HASN"T.
J. Clarke
> In article <rNSdnSlApuhd8RzU...@giganews.com>, Ron
> Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a
>>>> very small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
>>>
>>> no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
>>> propagates on its own.
>>
>> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible
>> WILL be done, sooner or later.
>
> and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8 years
> (and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a
> few
> lame attempts.
One of the worst attacks in history affected Unix servers, so, sorry,
but the "attempts" have been anything but "lame".
> where are these so called expert hackers?
Maximizing reward. Why attack Macs? There aren't many of them and
few are doing anything interesting. Kill every Mac on earth and a few
nerds and college kids are inconvenienced. Kill every PC and business
comes to a screeching halt.
> the first
> one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
> peers.
Nahh. Not worth the effort.
whisky-dave
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:O_adnXxm1ut1hR3U...@giganews.com...
> Usually I have a new battery 'in stock' (my wife buys batteries when a
> good sale comes along), and just install one immediately. When you get
> old, you learn a few ways to deal, safely, with a slowly deteriorating
> memory.....
I'll remember that, must buy a new battery on the way home...... ;-)
failing memory... not what is it again I need on the way home ;-)
whisky-dave
>
> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible WILL
> be done, sooner or later.
Yep, transporter technology phasers, yep one day.
> The key is the user, and getting him/her to install the program in the
> first place. Should someone ever get a self-propagating virus working on
> a Mac, and put it on the internet, the effect will be devastating.
When it happens, it'll happen same as sex, I'd wear a condom when having
sex
but not when I'm doing other stuff otherwise I'd wear one 24 hours a day.
Now suppose there' is a virus created like AIDS that spreads when you pass
someone talking on a mobile phone, and the only protection is a condon,
so why aren't you wearing a condom NOW. ?
Same with wearing a gas mask someone somewhere might develop
something that they'll release in to the atmosphere like mustard gas and
it'll kill you
in a few minutes so why aren't you also wearing a gas mask ?
Do you have a mask at home ready, if not why not ?
Do you always carry spare underwear incase you have a toilet accident ?
if not why not ?
whisky-dave
Which could expian why PC users tend to suffer more from viruses
i.e they aren't educated ;-)
whisky-dave
"dwight" <dwi...@tfrogX.com> wrote in message
news:glphal$kbj$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
> Not me. I'm one of those fools who makes a living on copyright.
>
> dwight
So if it weren't for those 'criminals' you wouldn't be able to earn a
living. ;-)
it's like policeman, we only need them when ??????????????/
>
>
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible
> >> WILL be done, sooner or later.
> >
> > and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8 years
> > (and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a
> > few
> > lame attempts.
>
> One of the worst attacks in history affected Unix servers, so, sorry,
> but the "attempts" have been anything but "lame".
the morris worm? that was 20 years ago! is that the best you can do?
ray
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> Why not try GIMP instead - it's a piece of cake.
> HARDLY!
Really? I've never had an issue getting GIMP installed.
Ron Hunter
It's not worth the effort.
BTW Unix has had its share of problems over the years.
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
Easy to install, HARD to learn to use.
ray
Really? I've not used photoshop that much, but a few times and I have
read about it. Seems to me that GIMP is a lot easier to use - but then
I've been a computer professional for 30 years - that could make a
difference. I expect that to a person unknowledgable about either program
it would be six of one, half dozen of the other.
Alfred Molon
> Really? I've not used photoshop that much, but a few times and I have
> read about it. Seems to me that GIMP is a lot easier to use - but then
I gave a try to GIMP a couple of years ago. Back then the preview of the
RAW converter was painfully slow to refresh, so slow that it made it
effectively impossible to choose the right settings.
What's the point of making a change to the white balance if you have to
wait for a while for the result to show up in the preview. Changes to
parameters have to immediately show up in the preview window.
Has GIMP become faster since then? If not, it would seem that it is not
well programmed.
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
ray
It the last two years or so it has been completely redone. For handling
raw data, I higly recommend ufraw - fast, simple and allows basic editing
right there.
John McWilliams
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <rNSdnSlApuhd8RzU...@giganews.com>, Ron
>> Hunter
>> <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a
>>>>> very small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
>>>> no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
>>>> propagates on its own.
>>> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible
>>> WILL be done, sooner or later.
>> and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8 years
>> (and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a
>> few
>> lame attempts.
>
> One of the worst attacks in history affected Unix servers, so, sorry,
> but the "attempts" have been anything but "lame".
>
>> where are these so called expert hackers?
>
> Maximizing reward. Why attack Macs? There aren't many of them and
> few are doing anything interesting. Kill every Mac on earth and a few
> nerds and college kids are inconvenienced. Kill every PC and business
> comes to a screeching halt.
Wow, JC, really?!
At least artistic expression wouldn't take much of a hit if all PCs died
tomorrow.
>
>> the first
>> one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
>> peers.
>
> Nahh. Not worth the effort.
Don't know why you've become so bitter and occasionally nasty since you
came back.
Virus?
--
lsmft
John McWilliams
If you are wearing the tin foil helmet, you'll be forwarned of these
disaster by the aliens who are creting them....
--
john mcwilliams
J. Clarke
Don't bet on it. Macs don't have the same hold on the artistic
community that they used to.
>>> the first
>>> one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
>>> peers.
>>
>> Nahh. Not worth the effort.
>
> Don't know why you've become so bitter and occasionally nasty since
> you came back.
> Virus?
Came back? Huh?
Ron Hunter
Both have a rather steep learning curve, but I found the GIMP interface
to be so unconventional as to boggle the mind. BTW, I started in
computers in 1964, so I have a long perspective as well. Any program
with the power and flexibility of either program will take some time and
effort to learn, but the rather strange, from Windows users point of
view, user interface of GIMP would probably confuse more than the more
'Mac-like' interface of Photoshop.
Sir John Howard
> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:34:28 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Why not try GIMP instead - it's a piece of cake.
>>>>> HARDLY!
>>>> Really? I've never had an issue getting GIMP installed.
>>> Easy to install, HARD to learn to use.
>>
>> Really? I've not used photoshop that much, but a few times and I have
>> read about it. Seems to me that GIMP is a lot easier to use - but then
>> I've been a computer professional for 30 years - that could make a
>> difference. I expect that to a person unknowledgable about either
>> program it would be six of one, half dozen of the other.
>
> Both have a rather steep learning curve, but I found the GIMP interface
> to be so unconventional as to boggle the mind. BTW, I started in
> computers in 1964, so I have a long perspective as well.
Then you should realise that the interface GIMP uses is a long way from punch
cards and magnetic drums.
> Any program
> with the power and flexibility of either program will take some time and
> effort to learn, but the rather strange, from Windows users point of
> view, user interface of GIMP would probably confuse more than the more
> 'Mac-like' interface of Photoshop.
So you're saying you have no Unix/Linux experience or perhaps GNU experience?
--
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"God save the Queen because nothing will save the governor general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee John Kerr.
Toby
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:I56dnUTQXcOQ_uLU...@novis.pt...
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have
> a new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox,
> Internet Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable"
> helpdesk workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in
> the window of FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not
> have the appropriate permissions to access the item."
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
> Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Focus
Strange, I had no problem at all with the dowload in FF. If worse comes to
worst, download a cracked version and don't use the crack--just install with
your legitimate SN.
Toby
whisky-dave
I can spell it, but my fingers can't type it ;-)
Alfred Molon
> It the last two years or so it has been completely redone. For handling
> raw data, I higly recommend ufraw - fast, simple and allows basic editing
> right there.
Ok, I downloaded and installed GIMP and UFRAW. The GIMP requires some
learning, because I tried to do some image editing and could not find
the controls or filters. I guess a book about the GIMP would help.
The preview window of UFRAW is now fast enough to see changes in real
time, when you move the sliders. However the panel with all sliders
needs to be reworked, because it is a bit arkward to work with.
Could not find the gamma or brightness control, then it turned out that
you have to play with a curve in another panel. It should be a slider
instead.
No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <6ufbgjF...@mid.individual.net>, ray says...
>
>> It the last two years or so it has been completely redone. For handling
>> raw data, I higly recommend ufraw - fast, simple and allows basic editing
>> right there.
>
>Ok, I downloaded and installed GIMP and UFRAW. The GIMP requires some
>learning, because I tried to do some image editing and could not find
>the controls or filters. I guess a book about the GIMP would help.
If you "could not find the controls or filters", no book
is going to help you do much of anything. (Mostly
because you are clearly fabricating your story.)
>The preview window of UFRAW is now fast enough to see changes in real
>time, when you move the sliders. However the panel with all sliders
>needs to be reworked, because it is a bit arkward to work with.
To someone who can't find filters in GIMP, *anything* is awkward.
>Could not find the gamma or brightness control, then it turned out that
>you have to play with a curve in another panel. It should be a slider
>instead.
Again, you are fabricating. Nobody using half an ounce
of brains could miss the slider for gamma. I don't
believe that even you are actually too dumb to find it,
but I do think it is very obvious that you are dishonest
enough to post such a claim here.
>No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
>Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
What value is there to having 100% pixel view as opposed
to 50%? That's not a problem at all, much less a big
one. And zooming in is not messy, it's about as
clearcut as anything could be.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
ray
> In article <6ufbgjF...@mid.individual.net>, ray says...
>
>> It the last two years or so it has been completely redone. For handling
>> raw data, I higly recommend ufraw - fast, simple and allows basic
>> editing right there.
>
> Ok, I downloaded and installed GIMP and UFRAW. The GIMP requires some
> learning, because I tried to do some image editing and could not find
> the controls or filters. I guess a book about the GIMP would help.
It's different than photoshop. But I've never had much difficulty finding
what I wanted. There is an excellent tutorial you can get on the web
called 'Grokking the GIMP'. Also a good book - 'Beginning GIMP'.
>
> The preview window of UFRAW is now fast enough to see changes in real
> time, when you move the sliders. However the panel with all sliders
> needs to be reworked, because it is a bit arkward to work with. Could
> not find the gamma or brightness control, then it turned out that you
> have to play with a curve in another panel. It should be a slider
> instead.
> No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
> Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
Never much needed to get to the pixel level - I can see how that might be
important for others. Again, I've not had any difficulty negotiating in
ufraw - may be just a case of what you're used to. I tend to just accept
layouts and adapt to them rather than try to figure out how they'd be
better laid out.
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
> >Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
>
> What value is there to having 100% pixel view as opposed
> to 50%?
to examine artifacts, sharpening halos, etc.
> That's not a problem at all, much less a big
> one.
actually it is a very significant shortcoming, and a surprising one at
that since it's trivial to do and the decision is purely arbitrary.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <87skn0l...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
>> >Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
>>
>> What value is there to having 100% pixel view as opposed
>> to 50%?
>
>to examine artifacts, sharpening halos, etc.
No, you don't do that in a raw converter, you do that in
an editor. It has not value at all in UFRAW...
>> That's not a problem at all, much less a big
>> one.
>
>actually it is a very significant shortcoming, and a surprising one at
>that since it's trivial to do and the decision is purely arbitrary.
Given that "trivial" and "arbitrary" are indeed correct,
it should be obvious that somebody who actually knows
what he is doing (the author of UFRAW) is very much
aware that 100% pixel view in a raw conversion program
is insignificant.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:46:57 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> In article <6ufbgjF...@mid.individual.net>, ray says...
>>
>>> It the last two years or so it has been completely redone. For handling
>>> raw data, I higly recommend ufraw - fast, simple and allows basic
>>> editing right there.
>>
>> Ok, I downloaded and installed GIMP and UFRAW. The GIMP requires some
>> learning, because I tried to do some image editing and could not find
>> the controls or filters. I guess a book about the GIMP would help.
>
>It's different than photoshop. But I've never had much difficulty finding
>what I wanted. There is an excellent tutorial you can get on the web
>called 'Grokking the GIMP'. Also a good book - 'Beginning GIMP'.
He claims he can't find any of the "Colors", "Tools", or
"Filters" items on the main toolbar... how will a book
help him?
He's just making up stories about how hard it is.
>> The preview window of UFRAW is now fast enough to see changes in real
>> time, when you move the sliders. However the panel with all sliders
>> needs to be reworked, because it is a bit arkward to work with. Could
>> not find the gamma or brightness control, then it turned out that you
>> have to play with a curve in another panel. It should be a slider
>> instead.
>> No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
>> Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
>
>Never much needed to get to the pixel level - I can see how that might be
>important for others. Again, I've not had any difficulty negotiating in
The reason you've not had any difficulty is because you
actually do use it. When actually using UFRAW there
is *never* any need for 100% pixel viewing. It's a raw
conversion program, not an image editor! There is
virtually *nothing* that you would change or adjust
because of something that can be seen at 100% vs. 50%
viewing.
>ufraw - may be just a case of what you're used to. I tend to just accept
>layouts and adapt to them rather than try to figure out how they'd be
>better laid out.
There are reasonable criticisms of the interface/layout
of UFRAW. I've had discussions with Udi Fuchs about the
icons he uses, and did not convince him to change them.
He is probably right... :-)
But these made up scenarios presented by folks who have
never actually used the program and have no intent other
than to be negative, are clearly not significant.
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >> >No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
> >> >Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
> >>
> >> What value is there to having 100% pixel view as opposed
> >> to 50%?
> >
> >to examine artifacts, sharpening halos, etc.
>
> No, you don't do that in a raw converter, you do that in
> an editor. It has not value at all in UFRAW...
do what? sharpen? a little sharpening during raw conversion is
desirable. see bruce fraser's book for more info. you can always turn
it off if you disagree.
> >> That's not a problem at all, much less a big
> >> one.
> >
> >actually it is a very significant shortcoming, and a surprising one at
> >that since it's trivial to do and the decision is purely arbitrary.
>
> Given that "trivial" and "arbitrary" are indeed correct,
> it should be obvious that somebody who actually knows
> what he is doing (the author of UFRAW) is very much
> aware that 100% pixel view in a raw conversion program
> is insignificant.
so the authors of every other raw converter don't know what they're
doing?? that's a bit much.
why deny the feature to those who want it, especially when it's so
incredibly trivial to do. it's not like anyone was asking to add
exotic and difficult to implement features.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <87myd8l...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >No 100% pixel view - big problem. Also, zooming in is a bit messy.
>> >> >Overall the developers of UFRAW need to improve its user interface.
>> >>
>> >> What value is there to having 100% pixel view as opposed
>> >> to 50%?
>> >
>> >to examine artifacts, sharpening halos, etc.
>>
>> No, you don't do that in a raw converter, you do that in
>> an editor. It has not value at all in UFRAW...
>
>do what? sharpen? a little sharpening during raw conversion is
>desirable.
Wrong, it is desirable *after* conversion.
The point however still misses your attention, because
you clearly have never used UFRAW and are fabricating a
discussion, not from known facts, but from what you
expect should be true.
The image displayed by UFRAW shows neither artifacts nor
sharpening, therefore you *cannot* gain anything in
viewing them at 100% vs. 50%.
>see bruce fraser's book for more info. you can always turn
>it off if you disagree.
An abjectly ignorant statement which proves that you are
discussing a topic that you have no knowledge of at all.
>> >> That's not a problem at all, much less a big
>> >> one.
>> >
>> >actually it is a very significant shortcoming, and a surprising one at
>> >that since it's trivial to do and the decision is purely arbitrary.
>>
>> Given that "trivial" and "arbitrary" are indeed correct,
>> it should be obvious that somebody who actually knows
>> what he is doing (the author of UFRAW) is very much
>> aware that 100% pixel view in a raw conversion program
>> is insignificant.
>
>so the authors of every other raw converter don't know what they're
>doing?? that's a bit much.
Your logic is faulty. You don't have a clue what you
are talking about.
>why deny the feature to those who want it, especially when it's so
The "feature" being discussed is 100% pixel viewing.
You seem to be confused. It provides exactly no
benefit, but it is true that it would be trivial to add
and such a decision would indeed also be "purely
arbitrary". So why would UFRAW's maintainer bother with
it????
>incredibly trivial to do. it's not like anyone was asking to add
>exotic and difficult to implement features.
They are asking for something that they do not
understand, which happens to be a useless waste of
programing time.