Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[NEWS] Adobe kills Creative Suite
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Your Name
May 7, 2013, 5:21:50 PM5/7/13
to
Adobe started the desktop publishing industry and now it looks like
they're going to be the ones to kill it ...
Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe has decided to focus its resources on Creative Cloud and
will not continue development on its Creative Suite software,
reports The Next Web. While Creative Suite 6 will continue to be
supported in regards to bug fixes, there will be no further
updates and no Creative Suite 7.
Instead, the company has today announced several Creative Cloud
apps at its Adobe MAX conference, including Photoshop CC,
InDesign CC, Illustrator CC, Dreamweaver CC, and Premiere Pro CC.
Each of the apps has seen notable upgrades, as detailed by The
Next Web. For example, Photoshop CC offers new features like
Camera Shake reduction and Behance integration, which can be seen
in the Adobe promo video below.
Adobe's Creative Cloud applications will launch this June. The
company plans to offer current users of CS 3 and beyond a year of
Creative Cloud at a discounted price.
"For creatives that rely on the company's upgrade paths,
some will be pleased to find that anyone with a CS 3 or
later serial number will get their first Creative Cloud
year for $29.99 per month. For everyone else, the
complete version of Creative Cloud will set you back
$49.99 per month, or you can purchase a single app
license subscription for $19.99 per month.
For teams, the same applies, but you'll pay $69.99 per
month per user or $39.99 if you've purchased CS 3 or
later -- added perks include significantly more cloud
storage. For students, CC will set you back $19.99 per
month for the complete version, and there is also now
a "Teams for Education" offering at $39.99 per month
per user."
With a standard Creative Cloud subscription, users can access
the full library of Adobe apps, making it an attractive choice
for subscribers that plan to access multiple Adobe products.
According to Scott Morris (via TechCrunch), head of Adobe's
Creative Cloud and Creative Suite teams, the shift will allow
Adobe's engineers the "ability to focus," providing quicker
updates and more innovative features in the future.
Whichever management moron came up with this idea needs to be fired quickly.
It's nothing but sheer laziness (not wanting to bother making Mac,
Windows, iOS, and Android versions) and greed (it'll cost most users WAY
more) ... and that's before you get into the stupidity of using the
internet constantly with over-priced plans, flakey connections, and silly
data caps. It's going to destroy a lot of small businesses, including
probably my own. :-(
Anyone know a good replacement for Adobe's Creative Suite software?? (CYMK
print publishing, CMYK bitmap image editing, vector illustration editing,
website development, etc.)
I said a while ago that the idiotic "Cloud" nonsense would lead to back to
the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
companies will soon be doing the same stupidity. :-(
JF Mezei
May 7, 2013, 7:11:07 PM5/7/13
to
$78-
and access to the corporate jet. He used the word "Cloud" in the
product, so he has to be rewarded.
If Adobe wanted to raise revenus, they needed to lower their upgrade costs.
They now want you to pay $50/month ( $600/year) for what is likely to be
inferior software. Shareholders will aplaud this move because Adobe used
the word "Cloud" in the announcement, not realising it will anger many
many pro customers.
Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
This is akin to Adobe announcing it is closing shop and stopping
development of its software.
On 13-05-07 17:21, Your Name wrote:
> Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
> Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
> Whichever management moron came up with this idea needs to be fired quickly.
Are you kidding me ? He will get a raise, bonus with a free sports car
and access to the corporate jet. He used the word "Cloud" in the
product, so he has to be rewarded.
If Adobe wanted to raise revenus, they needed to lower their upgrade costs.
They now want you to pay $50/month ( $600/year) for what is likely to be
inferior software. Shareholders will aplaud this move because Adobe used
the word "Cloud" in the announcement, not realising it will anger many
many pro customers.
Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
This is akin to Adobe announcing it is closing shop and stopping
development of its software.
George Kerby
May 7, 2013, 7:32:49 PM5/7/13
to
On 5/7/13 4:21 PM, in article
YourName-080...@203-118-187-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz, "Your Name"
Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
Message has been deleted
nospam
May 7, 2013, 7:51:51 PM5/7/13
to
In article <CDAEF951.9B404%ghost_...@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
digital darkroom was originally from silicon beach, which was later
bought by aldus.
photoshop was a totally separate product and had nothing whatsoever to
do with digital darkroom, silicon beach or aldus.
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually *Aldus* started the Desktop Publishing era with PageMaker and
> Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
you recall wrong.
> Actually *Aldus* started the Desktop Publishing era with PageMaker and
> Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
digital darkroom was originally from silicon beach, which was later
bought by aldus.
photoshop was a totally separate product and had nothing whatsoever to
do with digital darkroom, silicon beach or aldus.
nospam
May 7, 2013, 7:51:53 PM5/7/13
to
In article <oi3jo815rdh8l9h0i...@4ax.com>, Ira Lieberman
> is that you won't have any applications on your computer at all.
> You'll log in to the Adobe servers to access your account, then you'll
> use the applications on their servers to do your work online. You'll
> only have data files on your computer, and you won't be able to do
> anything with/to them without getting into the cloud.
that is completely wrong.
adobe creative cloud apps are downloaded and run on your computer, just
like any other adobe app.
the difference is they ping adobe every so often to see if they are
still associated with an active account and if there are any updates to
be had.
the apps are *not* run on their servers nor do you need to be online to
use it.
<iml.rem...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> >whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
>
> I think that you're missing the point. The ultimate aim of the cloud
> >Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> >whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
>
> is that you won't have any applications on your computer at all.
> You'll log in to the Adobe servers to access your account, then you'll
> use the applications on their servers to do your work online. You'll
> only have data files on your computer, and you won't be able to do
> anything with/to them without getting into the cloud.
that is completely wrong.
adobe creative cloud apps are downloaded and run on your computer, just
like any other adobe app.
the difference is they ping adobe every so often to see if they are
still associated with an active account and if there are any updates to
be had.
the apps are *not* run on their servers nor do you need to be online to
use it.
David Empson
May 7, 2013, 8:00:13 PM5/7/13
to
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> $78-
> On 13-05-07 17:21, Your Name wrote:
>
> > Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
>
>
> > Whichever management moron came up with this idea needs to be fired quickly.
>
> Are you kidding me ? He will get a raise, bonus with a free sports car
> and access to the corporate jet. He used the word "Cloud" in the
> product, so he has to be rewarded.
>
> If Adobe wanted to raise revenus, they needed to lower their upgrade costs.
>
> They now want you to pay $50/month ( $600/year) for what is likely to be
> inferior software. Shareholders will aplaud this move because Adobe used
> the word "Cloud" in the announcement, not realising it will anger many
> many pro customers.
>
> Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
No. Both you and "Your Name" seem to be confused about the concept of
> $78-
> On 13-05-07 17:21, Your Name wrote:
>
> > Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
>
>
> > Whichever management moron came up with this idea needs to be fired quickly.
>
> Are you kidding me ? He will get a raise, bonus with a free sports car
> and access to the corporate jet. He used the word "Cloud" in the
> product, so he has to be rewarded.
>
> If Adobe wanted to raise revenus, they needed to lower their upgrade costs.
>
> They now want you to pay $50/month ( $600/year) for what is likely to be
> inferior software. Shareholders will aplaud this move because Adobe used
> the word "Cloud" in the announcement, not realising it will anger many
> many pro customers.
>
> Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
where the software is located.
The applications still run on the computer. The "cloud" aspect mainly
means:
- The applications must be installed via download, not from physical
media.
- Once installed, the applications periodically "phone home" to check
they are authorised for use.
- Optional online storage component.
- Optional collaboration features.
The problems I've thought of so far:
1. Pricing structure makes this unaffordable for a large number of
casual or intermittent users, or even some professional users whose
cashflow is bursty. It is unfavourable for those who need a subset of
the Adobe applications but not the whole Master Suite, but not so bad
for those who only need one application continuously. It is also
unfavourable for those who preferred to save money by skipping versions
and upgrading every few years.
2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
because your applications will stop working.
3. Adobe has you by the short and curlies and can increase pricing as
they see fit.
4. What happens if this all turns to custard and Adobe goes bust?
Everyone loses access to all their Adobe documents.
5. System requirements mean those who need to run Snow Leopard for
compatibility with old software cannot run most of the Creative Cloud
applications, as many of them now require Lion or later. Combined with
the following point about Adobe application updates, this could result
in forced OS upgrades more often than some people are comfortable with.
6. Updates to the applications are not mandatory, but in some cases will
effectively be required if you need to collaborate with other people who
are running the updated version. This could result in version management
issues unless everyone involved updates to the latest version. It could
also interfere with workflow if there are bugs in the latest updates,
unless it is possible to keep installers for older versions. This could
also mean you can't run multiple versions of the creative cloud
applications. (No problem for CS1-6 users keeping the old version
installed - this is a future concern.)
7. The requirement for regular Internet access will be a serious problem
for those who want to be able to use Adobe tools off-line for an
extended period.
8. The requirement to download the installers will be a problem for
users who have expensive, capped or slow Internet connections.
One point I haven't checked yet: do they have downloadable installers
that you can copy to multiple computers, avoiding the need to download
separately on each computer?
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
nospam
May 7, 2013, 8:28:57 PM5/7/13
to
In article <1l2juo7.v8wei116dmdj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
know, is not part of the creative cloud. elements is $99 msrp and
usually around half that.
creative suite and creative cloud was never targeted at casual users.
some casual users used it it but that wasn't the main target audience.
> 2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
> access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
> because your applications will stop working.
this is a problem.
> 3. Adobe has you by the short and curlies and can increase pricing as
> they see fit.
no different than before. sometimes prices go up, sometimes they go
down. lightroom went from $300 to $149 because of apple slashing the
price of aperture.
> 4. What happens if this all turns to custard and Adobe goes bust?
> Everyone loses access to all their Adobe documents.
it's very likely they'd be forced to disable the activation server.
they disabled it for cs2 because it wasn't worth the hassle to keep it
running.
> 5. System requirements mean those who need to run Snow Leopard for
> compatibility with old software cannot run most of the Creative Cloud
> applications, as many of them now require Lion or later. Combined with
> the following point about Adobe application updates, this could result
> in forced OS upgrades more often than some people are comfortable with.
lots of software no longer works on snow leopard.
> 6. Updates to the applications are not mandatory, but in some cases will
> effectively be required if you need to collaborate with other people who
> are running the updated version. This could result in version management
> issues unless everyone involved updates to the latest version. It could
> also interfere with workflow if there are bugs in the latest updates,
> unless it is possible to keep installers for older versions. This could
> also mean you can't run multiple versions of the creative cloud
> applications. (No problem for CS1-6 users keeping the old version
> installed - this is a future concern.)
that's been the case for a while. older versions can open documents
created in later versions, but if the document contains something not
available in the older version, you're screwed. you need to upgrade or
the other party has to modify the document.
it's also how it works on ios. if an app developer releases a buggy
update and you installed it, backtracking is a royal pain and you lose
any associated data because you have to delete and reinstall.
> 7. The requirement for regular Internet access will be a serious problem
> for those who want to be able to use Adobe tools off-line for an
> extended period.
most people are online enough that this won't be a problem.
however, it's certainly possible that someone is away from the internet
(maybe a short trip to a remote location) at the same time it tries to
phone home.
> 8. The requirement to download the installers will be a problem for
> users who have expensive, capped or slow Internet connections.
apple is doing the same thing. downloading osx or xcode is a lengthy
process, and the osx updates are often fairly big too.
> One point I haven't checked yet: do they have downloadable installers
> that you can copy to multiple computers, avoiding the need to download
> separately on each computer?
dunno, but i would think that's possible.
<dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> The problems I've thought of so far:
>
> 1. Pricing structure makes this unaffordable for a large number of
> casual or intermittent users, or even some professional users whose
> cashflow is bursty. It is unfavourable for those who need a subset of
> the Adobe applications but not the whole Master Suite, but not so bad
> for those who only need one application continuously. It is also
> unfavourable for those who preferred to save money by skipping versions
> and upgrading every few years.
casual users are well served with photoshop elements, which as far as i
> The problems I've thought of so far:
>
> 1. Pricing structure makes this unaffordable for a large number of
> casual or intermittent users, or even some professional users whose
> cashflow is bursty. It is unfavourable for those who need a subset of
> the Adobe applications but not the whole Master Suite, but not so bad
> for those who only need one application continuously. It is also
> unfavourable for those who preferred to save money by skipping versions
> and upgrading every few years.
know, is not part of the creative cloud. elements is $99 msrp and
usually around half that.
creative suite and creative cloud was never targeted at casual users.
some casual users used it it but that wasn't the main target audience.
> 2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
> access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
> because your applications will stop working.
> 3. Adobe has you by the short and curlies and can increase pricing as
> they see fit.
down. lightroom went from $300 to $149 because of apple slashing the
price of aperture.
> 4. What happens if this all turns to custard and Adobe goes bust?
> Everyone loses access to all their Adobe documents.
they disabled it for cs2 because it wasn't worth the hassle to keep it
running.
> 5. System requirements mean those who need to run Snow Leopard for
> compatibility with old software cannot run most of the Creative Cloud
> applications, as many of them now require Lion or later. Combined with
> the following point about Adobe application updates, this could result
> in forced OS upgrades more often than some people are comfortable with.
> 6. Updates to the applications are not mandatory, but in some cases will
> effectively be required if you need to collaborate with other people who
> are running the updated version. This could result in version management
> issues unless everyone involved updates to the latest version. It could
> also interfere with workflow if there are bugs in the latest updates,
> unless it is possible to keep installers for older versions. This could
> also mean you can't run multiple versions of the creative cloud
> applications. (No problem for CS1-6 users keeping the old version
> installed - this is a future concern.)
created in later versions, but if the document contains something not
available in the older version, you're screwed. you need to upgrade or
the other party has to modify the document.
it's also how it works on ios. if an app developer releases a buggy
update and you installed it, backtracking is a royal pain and you lose
any associated data because you have to delete and reinstall.
> 7. The requirement for regular Internet access will be a serious problem
> for those who want to be able to use Adobe tools off-line for an
> extended period.
however, it's certainly possible that someone is away from the internet
(maybe a short trip to a remote location) at the same time it tries to
phone home.
> 8. The requirement to download the installers will be a problem for
> users who have expensive, capped or slow Internet connections.
process, and the osx updates are often fairly big too.
> One point I haven't checked yet: do they have downloadable installers
> that you can copy to multiple computers, avoiding the need to download
> separately on each computer?
Davoud
May 7, 2013, 8:48:33 PM5/7/13
to
David Empson:
Pretty good summary. In this era I doubt that the lack of regular
Internet access will be a problem for the great majority users. But it
will be interesting to learn what will happen to a scientist or nature
photographer who is planning a lengthy photographic excursion through
the outback of some reeking outback without Internet access. They would
be limited to downloading from the camera to Lightroom (or Aperture)
and doing some preliminary processing. If they're both good and lucky,
that might be enough for them to be ready to transmit finished work
back home when they reach civilization again. Lightroom is separate
from CC because it is widely used by amateurs as well as professionals;
it will continue to be sold as a separate application for the
foreseeable future, Adobe says.
As for those who could upgrade their OS, but do not due to "discomfort,
they don't get much sympathy from me. It has always been the case that
to run some modern applications one needs the latest OS. For those who
have legacy software, my advice is "get past it and find a
replacement."
> One point I haven't checked yet: do they have downloadable installers
> that you can copy to multiple computers, avoiding the need to download
> separately on each computer?
No downloadable installers. The license allows two computers, as
before, one at a time. I have some CC apps on my iMac but I haven't yet
found the time to download CC apps to my wife's iMac.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Internet access will be a problem for the great majority users. But it
will be interesting to learn what will happen to a scientist or nature
photographer who is planning a lengthy photographic excursion through
the outback of some reeking outback without Internet access. They would
be limited to downloading from the camera to Lightroom (or Aperture)
and doing some preliminary processing. If they're both good and lucky,
that might be enough for them to be ready to transmit finished work
back home when they reach civilization again. Lightroom is separate
from CC because it is widely used by amateurs as well as professionals;
it will continue to be sold as a separate application for the
foreseeable future, Adobe says.
As for those who could upgrade their OS, but do not due to "discomfort,
they don't get much sympathy from me. It has always been the case that
to run some modern applications one needs the latest OS. For those who
have legacy software, my advice is "get past it and find a
replacement."
> One point I haven't checked yet: do they have downloadable installers
> that you can copy to multiple computers, avoiding the need to download
> separately on each computer?
before, one at a time. I have some CC apps on my iMac but I haven't yet
found the time to download CC apps to my wife's iMac.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Your Name
May 7, 2013, 9:10:34 PM5/7/13
to
> Actually *Aldus* started the Desktop Publishing era with PageMaker
Semi-true. It likely wouldn't have worked quite so well without Adobe's
Postscript and "cheap" laser printers as well. Of course, Adoeb bought
PageMaker, then ruined it and killed it (replacing it with InDesign).
> and Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
ditched their own hopeless GoLive, after saying they wouldn't).
Your Name
May 7, 2013, 9:12:09 PM5/7/13
to
In article <51898a0d$0$5944$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
> If Adobe wanted to raise revenus, they needed to lower their upgrade costs.
>
> They now want you to pay $50/month ($600/year) for what is likely to be
to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
the application entirely over the internet. :-(
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> $78-
> On 13-05-07 17:21, Your Name wrote:
>
> > Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
>
>
> > Whichever management moron came up with this idea needs to be fired quickly.
>
> Are you kidding me ? He will get a raise, bonus with a free sports car
> and access to the corporate jet. He used the word "Cloud" in the
> product, so he has to be rewarded.
I did say "needs to be", not what he would get. :-(
> $78-
> On 13-05-07 17:21, Your Name wrote:
>
> > Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
>
>
> > Whichever management moron came up with this idea needs to be fired quickly.
>
> Are you kidding me ? He will get a raise, bonus with a free sports car
> and access to the corporate jet. He used the word "Cloud" in the
> product, so he has to be rewarded.
> If Adobe wanted to raise revenus, they needed to lower their upgrade costs.
>
> inferior software. Shareholders will aplaud this move because Adobe used
> the word "Cloud" in the announcement, not realising it will anger many
> many pro customers.
>
> Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
>
> This is akin to Adobe announcing it is closing shop and stopping
> development of its software.
In fourth world countries like New Zealand, it's often bad enough trying
> the word "Cloud" in the announcement, not realising it will anger many
> many pro customers.
>
> Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
>
> This is akin to Adobe announcing it is closing shop and stopping
> development of its software.
to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
the application entirely over the internet. :-(
Your Name
May 7, 2013, 9:14:17 PM5/7/13
to
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 19:11:07 -0400, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> >whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
>
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> >whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
>
> I think that you're missing the point. The ultimate aim of the cloud
> is that you won't have any applications on your computer at all.
> You'll log in to the Adobe servers to access your account, then you'll
> use the applications on their servers to do your work online. You'll
> only have data files on your computer, and you won't be able to do
> anything with/to them without getting into the cloud.
Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> is that you won't have any applications on your computer at all.
> You'll log in to the Adobe servers to access your account, then you'll
> use the applications on their servers to do your work online. You'll
> only have data files on your computer, and you won't be able to do
> anything with/to them without getting into the cloud.
internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
idiotic.
Your Name
May 7, 2013, 9:15:35 PM5/7/13
to
In article <070520131951516159%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
Photoshop was originally made by employees at George Lucas' ILM and bought
by Adobe. :-)
by Adobe. :-)
Your Name
May 7, 2013, 9:17:04 PM5/7/13
to
In article <070520131951536313%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
Yet!
> nor do you need to be online to use it.
Yes they do, you've just said the "ping adobe every so often" - now
contact with Adboe's servers, you're not able to work.
> nor do you need to be online to use it.
contact with Adboe's servers, you're not able to work.
nospam
May 7, 2013, 9:38:24 PM5/7/13
to
In article
<YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
to ping the server, which is about once a month.
the chances of both happening at the same time are low, but not zero,
so it's possible, but not very likely. the number of people for whom
this is an issue is very, very small. maybe they'll offer a phone
option to deal with that issue.
the rest of the time, no internet is needed.
<YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> idiotic.
totally false.
> Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> idiotic.
the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
to ping the server, which is about once a month.
the chances of both happening at the same time are low, but not zero,
so it's possible, but not very likely. the number of people for whom
this is an issue is very, very small. maybe they'll offer a phone
option to deal with that issue.
the rest of the time, no internet is needed.
nospam
May 7, 2013, 9:38:26 PM5/7/13
to
In article
<YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
<YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > and Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
>
> Yep,
nope. totally different app, totally different company.
>
> Yep,
nospam
May 7, 2013, 9:38:27 PM5/7/13
to
<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > Actually *Aldus* started the Desktop Publishing era with PageMaker and
> > > Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
> >
> > you recall wrong.
> >
> > digital darkroom was originally from silicon beach, which was later
> > bought by aldus.
> >
> > photoshop was a totally separate product and had nothing whatsoever to
> > do with digital darkroom, silicon beach or aldus.
>
> Photoshop was originally made by employees at George Lucas' ILM and bought
> by Adobe. :-)
which contradicts your other post that it was called digital darkroom.
> > > Actually *Aldus* started the Desktop Publishing era with PageMaker and
> > > Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
> >
> > you recall wrong.
> >
> > digital darkroom was originally from silicon beach, which was later
> > bought by aldus.
> >
> > photoshop was a totally separate product and had nothing whatsoever to
> > do with digital darkroom, silicon beach or aldus.
>
> Photoshop was originally made by employees at George Lucas' ILM and bought
> by Adobe. :-)
> > and Photoshop was originally called Digital Darkroom, as I recall.
>
> Yep,
>
nospam
May 7, 2013, 9:38:28 PM5/7/13
to
<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > >Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> > > >whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
> > >
> > > I think that you're missing the point. The ultimate aim of the cloud
> > > is that you won't have any applications on your computer at all.
> > > You'll log in to the Adobe servers to access your account, then you'll
> > > use the applications on their servers to do your work online. You'll
> > > only have data files on your computer, and you won't be able to do
> > > anything with/to them without getting into the cloud.
> >
> > that is completely wrong.
> >
> > adobe creative cloud apps are downloaded and run on your computer, just
> > like any other adobe app.
> >
> > the difference is they ping adobe every so often to see if they are
> > still associated with an active account and if there are any updates to
> > be had.
> >
> > the apps are *not* run on their servers
>
> Yet!
so why worry?
> > > >Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> > > >whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
> > >
> > > I think that you're missing the point. The ultimate aim of the cloud
> > > is that you won't have any applications on your computer at all.
> > > You'll log in to the Adobe servers to access your account, then you'll
> > > use the applications on their servers to do your work online. You'll
> > > only have data files on your computer, and you won't be able to do
> > > anything with/to them without getting into the cloud.
> >
> > that is completely wrong.
> >
> > adobe creative cloud apps are downloaded and run on your computer, just
> > like any other adobe app.
> >
> > the difference is they ping adobe every so often to see if they are
> > still associated with an active account and if there are any updates to
> > be had.
> >
> > the apps are *not* run on their servers
>
> Yet!
if it happens, then worry about it.
right *now*, it's a locally installed app.
> > nor do you need to be online to use it.
>
> Yes they do, you've just said the "ping adobe every so often" - now
> contact with Adboe's servers, you're not able to work.
the rest of the time, no internet needed.
Davoud
May 7, 2013, 9:54:27 PM5/7/13
to
JF Mezei:
telling me that new CC apps are coming in June, and that will involve
downloads. Nothing odd there; that's the way software and software
updates are distributed these days.
> > This is akin to Adobe announcing it is closing shop and stopping
> > development of its software.
Releasing new versions doesn't sound like stopping development.
Your Name:
remote server. The same is true of one's files, though, as has been the
case for some years, it will be possible to store files on a remote
server as well as on one's own computer. It will remain that way for
the foreseeable future--until Internet speeds improve to the
gigabit/sec level, perhaps. That's a long time from now for most users,
whether in fourth-world New Zealand or third-world USA.
> > Will we have have to constantly re-download photoshop and all the files
> > whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
No, not really. That's just hyperbole. I have an e-mail from Adobe
> > whenevere I want to do a small edit to an image file ? Really ?
telling me that new CC apps are coming in June, and that will involve
downloads. Nothing odd there; that's the way software and software
updates are distributed these days.
> > This is akin to Adobe announcing it is closing shop and stopping
> > development of its software.
Your Name:
> In fourth world countries like New Zealand, it's often bad enough trying
> to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
> the application entirely over the internet. :-(
More misinformation. CC applications reside on one's computer, not on a
> to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
> the application entirely over the internet. :-(
remote server. The same is true of one's files, though, as has been the
case for some years, it will be possible to store files on a remote
server as well as on one's own computer. It will remain that way for
the foreseeable future--until Internet speeds improve to the
gigabit/sec level, perhaps. That's a long time from now for most users,
whether in fourth-world New Zealand or third-world USA.
Howard S Shubs
May 7, 2013, 10:42:05 PM5/7/13
to
In article
<YourName-080...@203-118-187-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
<YourName-080...@203-118-187-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> Adobe started the desktop publishing industry and now it looks like
> they're going to be the ones to kill it ...
Aldus. 'nuff said.
> Adobe started the desktop publishing industry and now it looks like
> they're going to be the ones to kill it ...
Your Name
May 8, 2013, 2:22:32 AM5/8/13
to
In article <070520132138279921%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
Actually, I never said that - it's a misquote by someone newreader
application or editing.
application or editing.
Your Name
May 8, 2013, 2:53:40 AM5/8/13
to
In article <070520132154278238%st...@sky.net>, a...@bbb.ccc wrote:
> Your Name:
> > In fourth world countries like New Zealand, it's often bad enough trying
> > to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
> > the application entirely over the internet. :-(
>
> More misinformation. CC applications reside on one's computer, not on a
> remote server. The same is true of one's files, though, as has been the
> case for some years, it will be possible to store files on a remote
> server as well as on one's own computer. It will remain that way for
> the foreseeable future--until Internet speeds improve to the
> gigabit/sec level, perhaps. That's a long time from now for most users,
> whether in fourth-world New Zealand or third-world USA.
Then why stupidly call it a "Cloud ap"? If it's not running in the "Cloud"
> Your Name:
> > In fourth world countries like New Zealand, it's often bad enough trying
> > to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
> > the application entirely over the internet. :-(
>
> More misinformation. CC applications reside on one's computer, not on a
> remote server. The same is true of one's files, though, as has been the
> case for some years, it will be possible to store files on a remote
> server as well as on one's own computer. It will remain that way for
> the foreseeable future--until Internet speeds improve to the
> gigabit/sec level, perhaps. That's a long time from now for most users,
> whether in fourth-world New Zealand or third-world USA.
and not stored in the cloud, then it's NOT a Cloud app, it's just a normal
downloadable app / application and any "misinformation" is caused by the
morons at Adobe (which isn't really a surprise since they've become almost
as bad as Microsoft).
Fred Moore
May 8, 2013, 1:39:00 PM5/8/13
to
In article <070520132138249752%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
> <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> > internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> > customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> > with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> > slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> > idiotic.
>
> totally false.
>
> the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> to ping the server, which is about once a month.
I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> In article
> <YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
> <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> > internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> > customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> > with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> > slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> > idiotic.
>
> totally false.
>
> the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> to ping the server, which is about once a month.
for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
nospam
May 8, 2013, 1:45:09 PM5/8/13
to
In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
the payments are monthly, so it probably pings monthly.
if it pinged every 99 days, you could get a whole lot more service for
only one month of payments.
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > > Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> > > internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> > > customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> > > with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> > > slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> > > idiotic.
> >
> > totally false.
> >
> > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
>
> I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
where did you see that?
> > > Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> > > internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> > > customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> > > with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> > > slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> > > idiotic.
> >
> > totally false.
> >
> > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
>
> I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
the payments are monthly, so it probably pings monthly.
if it pinged every 99 days, you could get a whole lot more service for
only one month of payments.
Davoud
May 8, 2013, 2:53:39 PM5/8/13
to
Your Name:
> > > In fourth world countries like New Zealand, it's often bad enough trying
> > > to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
> > > the application entirely over the internet. :-(
Davoud:
> > > In fourth world countries like New Zealand, it's often bad enough trying
> > > to get the idiotic online activation working, let alone now having to use
> > > the application entirely over the internet. :-(
> > More misinformation. CC applications reside on one's computer, not on a
> > remote server. The same is true of one's files, though, as has been the
> > case for some years, it will be possible to store files on a remote
> > server as well as on one's own computer. It will remain that way for
> > the foreseeable future--until Internet speeds improve to the
> > gigabit/sec level, perhaps. That's a long time from now for most users,
> > whether in fourth-world New Zealand or third-world USA.
Your Name:
> > remote server. The same is true of one's files, though, as has been the
> > case for some years, it will be possible to store files on a remote
> > server as well as on one's own computer. It will remain that way for
> > the foreseeable future--until Internet speeds improve to the
> > gigabit/sec level, perhaps. That's a long time from now for most users,
> > whether in fourth-world New Zealand or third-world USA.
> Then why stupidly call it a "Cloud ap"? If it's not running in the "Cloud"
> and not stored in the cloud, then it's NOT a Cloud app, it's just a normal
> downloadable app / application and any "misinformation" is caused by the
> morons at Adobe (which isn't really a surprise since they've become almost
> as bad as Microsoft).
Perhaps Adobe's definition of a cloud suite differs from yours. Perhaps
> and not stored in the cloud, then it's NOT a Cloud app, it's just a normal
> downloadable app / application and any "misinformation" is caused by the
> morons at Adobe (which isn't really a surprise since they've become almost
> as bad as Microsoft).
they call CC a cloud app because is available for rental only, and only
from "the cloud", and can store its files on "the cloud." Perhaps. But
why are you asking me? I'm not an Adobe spokesman. Ask Adobe and report
back what they have to say. Keep a civil tongue in your gob and you
might get an answer from Adobe.
Bread
May 8, 2013, 4:17:31 PM5/8/13
to
On 2013-05-08 00:28:57 +0000, nospam said:
> In article <1l2juo7.v8wei116dmdj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> 2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
>> access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
>> because your applications will stop working.
>
> this is a problem.
It's only a much more acute variation of a problem everyone already has.
> In article <1l2juo7.v8wei116dmdj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> 2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
>> access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
>> because your applications will stop working.
>
> this is a problem.
If you buy the software the old fashioned way, eventually you'll have
to buy an update to it when you update your computer and/or OS.
The furthest out you could push this problem is the length of time
you're willing to run outdated legacy hardware.
Of course, that time frame may be as much as a decade or so, rather
than the one month time frame that the new "subscription" model ties
you into. But it's still kind of the same problem.
The solution - in both cases - is to make sure that you keep copies of
your data in formats that can be read by other software. This is
sometimes pretty easy, and sometimes it's just a pain in the ass and
sometimes it's just not possible.
I think we have some old Appleworks and possibly even some old
MacWriteII docs somewhere. Oh well.
Fred Moore
May 8, 2013, 4:47:45 PM5/8/13
to
In article <080520131345093835%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> > > > internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> > > > customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> > > > with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> > > > slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> > > > idiotic.
> > >
> > > totally false.
> > >
> > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> >
> > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
>
> where did you see that?
<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Yep. If the interent is down - you can't work. If you're chainging
> > > > internet providers and it out for a while (or weeks as in one recent
> > > > customer's case) and you can't work. WOn't to go off the a holiday home
> > > > with no interent access, you can't work. And that's before you get into
> > > > slow or flakely connections and data caps. The whole idea is utterly
> > > > idiotic.
> > >
> > > totally false.
> > >
> > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> >
> > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
>
> where did you see that?
13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
Alan Browne
May 8, 2013, 5:21:44 PM5/8/13
to
On 2013.05.07 17:21 , Your Name wrote:
> Adobe started the desktop publishing industry and now it looks like
> they're going to be the ones to kill it ...
>
>
> Adobe started the desktop publishing industry and now it looks like
> they're going to be the ones to kill it ...
>
>
> Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Adobe has decided to focus its resources on Creative Cloud and
> will not continue development on its Creative Suite software,
> reports The Next Web. While Creative Suite 6 will continue to be
> supported in regards to bug fixes, there will be no further
> updates and no Creative Suite 7.
I was thinking on this the other day, and really software, if rented,
> Adobe has decided to focus its resources on Creative Cloud and
> will not continue development on its Creative Suite software,
> reports The Next Web. While Creative Suite 6 will continue to be
> supported in regards to bug fixes, there will be no further
> updates and no Creative Suite 7.
should be charged on work done not on calendar based subscription time.
For example $1 per terraflop of photo processing work. If that is done
every hour, then it's $1 per hour. If it takes a user 2 years to do a
terraflop, then it's $1 every 2 years.
Adobe would need to come up with a simple (verifiable) means of metering
actual photo work being done by the software - perhaps be using the
existing OS supplied monitors (and let's please not debate the
(dis)merits of those) or something else and more specific.
(I have no idea what the "right" amount of processing / unit of currency
should be - the values are for the example).
--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton
Jim Gibson
May 8, 2013, 5:34:10 PM5/8/13
to
In article <fmoore-9ACA8D....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc>
Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.,
states the policy:
"One final point I'd like to address is the misconception that you have
to be continuously connected to the Internet to use a CC application.
Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to
the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment
can go for as long as 99 days."
--
Jim Gibson
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> In article <080520131345093835%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> > Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> > >
> > > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
> >
> > where did you see that?
>
> <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> 13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
> No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
On this web page:
> In article <080520131345093835%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> > Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> > >
> > > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
> >
> > where did you see that?
>
> <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> 13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
> No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc>
Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.,
states the policy:
"One final point I'd like to address is the misconception that you have
to be continuously connected to the Internet to use a CC application.
Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to
the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment
can go for as long as 99 days."
--
Jim Gibson
nospam
May 8, 2013, 6:13:36 PM5/8/13
to
In article <080520131434109908%jimsg...@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
it can't be longer than a payment cycle.
<jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> > > >
> > > > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > > > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
> > >
> > > where did you see that?
> >
> > <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> > 13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
> > No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
>
> On this web page:
>
> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc>
>
> Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.,
> states the policy:
>
> "One final point I'd like to address is the misconception that you have
> to be continuously connected to the Internet to use a CC application.
> Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to
> the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment
> can go for as long as 99 days."
that makes sense.
> > > > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> > > >
> > > > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > > > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
> > >
> > > where did you see that?
> >
> > <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> > 13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
> > No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
>
> On this web page:
>
> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc>
>
> Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.,
> states the policy:
>
> "One final point I'd like to address is the misconception that you have
> to be continuously connected to the Internet to use a CC application.
> Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to
> the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment
> can go for as long as 99 days."
it can't be longer than a payment cycle.
Warren Oates
May 8, 2013, 7:35:14 PM5/8/13
to
In article <070520132138249752%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> totally false.
>
> the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> to ping the server, which is about once a month.
>
> the chances of both happening at the same time are low, but not zero,
> so it's possible, but not very likely. the number of people for whom
> this is an issue is very, very small. maybe they'll offer a phone
> option to deal with that issue.
>
> the rest of the time, no internet is needed.
Aside from which, Adobe has been calling home for years. I've got a
>
> the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> to ping the server, which is about once a month.
>
> the chances of both happening at the same time are low, but not zero,
> so it's possible, but not very likely. the number of people for whom
> this is an issue is very, very small. maybe they'll offer a phone
> option to deal with that issue.
>
> the rest of the time, no internet is needed.
hosts file that blocks it.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner
Your Name
May 8, 2013, 9:12:53 PM5/8/13
to
morons - it's not even really a "Cloud" system at all. It's simply
downloadable software and they've decided to change the name to look like
their "cutting-edge". :-\
The next issues is whether it's still real Mac or Windows software, or
some cross-platform garbage that needs rubbish like Java to "work".
Your Name
May 8, 2013, 9:18:51 PM5/8/13
to
In article <jcmdneZL25p1XBfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
There's also an issue of whether the "updates" are required or optional.
Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
now decides you need to have.
Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
now decides you need to have.
Your Name
May 8, 2013, 9:20:48 PM5/8/13
to
In article <518ae132$0$28654$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>, Warren
verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
already often abysmally bad).
Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <070520132138249752%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > totally false.
> >
> > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> >
> > the chances of both happening at the same time are low, but not zero,
> > so it's possible, but not very likely. the number of people for whom
> > this is an issue is very, very small. maybe they'll offer a phone
> > option to deal with that issue.
> >
> > the rest of the time, no internet is needed.
>
> Aside from which, Adobe has been calling home for years. I've got a
> hosts file that blocks it.
Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> In article <070520132138249752%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > totally false.
> >
> > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> >
> > the chances of both happening at the same time are low, but not zero,
> > so it's possible, but not very likely. the number of people for whom
> > this is an issue is very, very small. maybe they'll offer a phone
> > option to deal with that issue.
> >
> > the rest of the time, no internet is needed.
>
> Aside from which, Adobe has been calling home for years. I've got a
> hosts file that blocks it.
verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
already often abysmally bad).
Message has been deleted
nospam
May 8, 2013, 11:46:34 PM5/8/13
to
In article <518ae132$0$28654$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aside from which, Adobe has been calling home for years. I've got a
> hosts file that blocks it.
only for activation. after that, there's no need.
> hosts file that blocks it.
nospam
May 8, 2013, 11:46:36 PM5/8/13
to
In article
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
months for yearly customers.
the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
> which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> already often abysmally bad).
no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
this is totally false.
> Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
months for yearly customers.
the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
> which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> already often abysmally bad).
nospam
May 8, 2013, 11:46:37 PM5/8/13
to
In article <slrnkom2t7....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> Photoshop from pre CS days.
on windows maybe. not on a mac they aren't.
anyway, if someone is still using 15 year old photoshop, why would they
suddenly upgrade now?
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> Photoshop from pre CS days.
on windows maybe. not on a mac they aren't.
anyway, if someone is still using 15 year old photoshop, why would they
suddenly upgrade now?
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 12:12:48 AM5/9/13
to
In article <slrnkom2t7....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <kmebsr$ht2$1...@reader1.panix.com>
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
> > On 2013-05-08 00:28:57 +0000, nospam said:>
> >> In article <1l2juo7.v8wei116dmdj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> >> <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
> >>> access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
> >>> because your applications will stop working.
> >>
> >> this is a problem.
>
> > It's only a much more acute variation of a problem everyone already has.
>
> > If you buy the software the old fashioned way, eventually you'll have
> > to buy an update to it when you update your computer and/or OS.
>
> > On 2013-05-08 00:28:57 +0000, nospam said:>
> >> In article <1l2juo7.v8wei116dmdj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> >> <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2. If you stop paying for the creative cloud, you lose the ability to
> >>> access all your Adobe documents, unless you start paying Adobe again,
> >>> because your applications will stop working.
> >>
> >> this is a problem.
>
> > It's only a much more acute variation of a problem everyone already has.
>
> > If you buy the software the old fashioned way, eventually you'll have
> > to buy an update to it when you update your computer and/or OS.
>
> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> Photoshop from pre CS days.
I'm still using InDesign 2 (not "CS2"), Dreamweaver 4 (not "CS4"),
> Photoshop from pre CS days.
Illustrator 9, and an old Photoshop-clone from 1998 on a 15 year old
PowerMac G3 running Mac OS 10.1. :-)
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 12:16:13 AM5/9/13
to
In article <080520132346364618%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
won't work until it can.
> > which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> > internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> > already often abysmally bad).
>
> no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
Online rarely worked, even when the Internet was working, and the phone
system was even worse ... mind you, this is fourth-world New Zealand.
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
> Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> > verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
>
> this is totally false.
>
> it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
> months for yearly customers.
>
> the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
Yes, and as I said, if it can't verify your subscription the software
> In article
> <YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
> Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> > verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
>
> this is totally false.
>
> it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
> months for yearly customers.
>
> the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
won't work until it can.
> > which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> > internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> > already often abysmally bad).
>
> no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
system was even worse ... mind you, this is fourth-world New Zealand.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 12:17:26 AM5/9/13
to
In article <080520132346374679%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
They may be forced to by their current Mac failing and the replacement no
longer able to run the old version of the software.
longer able to run the old version of the software.
nospam
May 9, 2013, 1:43:40 AM5/9/13
to
In article
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-204.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-204.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> > > internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> > > already often abysmally bad).
> >
> > no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
>
> Online rarely worked, even when the Internet was working, and the phone
> system was even worse ... mind you, this is fourth-world New Zealand.
so the problem was new zealand, not adobe.
> > > which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> > > internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> > > already often abysmally bad).
> >
> > no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
>
> Online rarely worked, even when the Internet was working, and the phone
> system was even worse ... mind you, this is fourth-world New Zealand.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 2:14:05 AM5/9/13
to
In article <090520130143406021%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
Both, since it was Adobe's silly idea to have such an annoying
authentication system (other wesbites were often working fine at the same
time), and this new one is equally as silly by the sound of it. It's not
as if either system was / is going to stop piracy of the applications.
They should just stick to the usual serial codes that almost everyone else
used / uses.
authentication system (other wesbites were often working fine at the same
time), and this new one is equally as silly by the sound of it. It's not
as if either system was / is going to stop piracy of the applications.
They should just stick to the usual serial codes that almost everyone else
used / uses.
nospam
May 9, 2013, 2:28:34 AM5/9/13
to
In article
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-84.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
> It's not as if either system was / is going to stop piracy of the applications.
> They should just stick to the usual serial codes that almost everyone else
> used / uses.
nothing is going to stop piracy entirely but it made it a bit more
difficult than just getting a pirated serial.
the creative cloud will reduce piracy even more, and one of the reasons
they are doing it.
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-84.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > Online rarely worked, even when the Internet was working, and the phone
> > > system was even worse ... mind you, this is fourth-world New Zealand.
> >
> > so the problem was new zealand, not adobe.
>
> Both, since it was Adobe's silly idea to have such an annoying
> authentication system (other wesbites were often working fine at the same
> time), and this new one is equally as silly by the sound of it.
no, not both, because it works just fine everywhere else.
> > > Online rarely worked, even when the Internet was working, and the phone
> > > system was even worse ... mind you, this is fourth-world New Zealand.
> >
> > so the problem was new zealand, not adobe.
>
> Both, since it was Adobe's silly idea to have such an annoying
> authentication system (other wesbites were often working fine at the same
> time), and this new one is equally as silly by the sound of it.
> It's not as if either system was / is going to stop piracy of the applications.
> They should just stick to the usual serial codes that almost everyone else
> used / uses.
difficult than just getting a pirated serial.
the creative cloud will reduce piracy even more, and one of the reasons
they are doing it.
Warren Oates
May 9, 2013, 7:21:42 AM5/9/13
to
In article <080520132346364618%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
greedy-greedy.
Warren Oates
May 9, 2013, 7:23:16 AM5/9/13
to
In article <080520132346344540%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
Not so. It would 'phone home every time you made minor changes in your
software/hardware configuration. Are you paid to suck Adobe's dick?
software/hardware configuration. Are you paid to suck Adobe's dick?
Warren Oates
May 9, 2013, 7:26:55 AM5/9/13
to
In article
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
<YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> There's also an issue of whether the "updates" are required or optional.
> Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
> constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
> now decides you need to have.
Ah. The Apple model.
> There's also an issue of whether the "updates" are required or optional.
> Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
> constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
> now decides you need to have.
JF Mezei
May 9, 2013, 9:29:47 AM5/9/13
to
On 13-05-08 22:32, Lewis wrote:
> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> Photoshop from pre CS days.
The big gamble here is that people will just stop upgrading period, and
> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> Photoshop from pre CS days.
that may result in a huge drop in revenues at Adobe.
Adobe should have had a transition from the old system to the monthly
rental plan and only killed the real upgrades once the rental plan had
grown to a point where they could kill the old model.
MC
May 9, 2013, 10:01:46 AM5/9/13
to
In article <518ba4cc$0$15367$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com>,
Hitler learns about Adobe's plans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU&feature=youtu.be
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU&feature=youtu.be
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
David Fritzinger
May 9, 2013, 11:13:41 AM5/9/13
to
In article <518b86c7$0$15251$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com>,
going to go on the same business model? If so, I better buy the latest
edition soon...
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <080520132346364618%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
> > Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> > > verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
> >
> > this is totally false.
> >
> > it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
> > months for yearly customers.
> >
> > the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
> >
> > > which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> > > internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> > > already often abysmally bad).
> >
> > no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
>
> Or you blocked them. My CS5 never calls home, and never stops working.
>
> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> greedy-greedy.
Slightly off-topic question. Does anyone know if Photoshop Elements is
> In article <080520132346364618%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
> > Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
> > > verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
> >
> > this is totally false.
> >
> > it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
> > months for yearly customers.
> >
> > the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
> >
> > > which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
> > > internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
> > > already often abysmally bad).
> >
> > no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
>
> Or you blocked them. My CS5 never calls home, and never stops working.
>
> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> greedy-greedy.
going to go on the same business model? If so, I better buy the latest
edition soon...
nospam
May 9, 2013, 11:27:44 AM5/9/13
to
In article <dfritzin-794738...@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> Slightly off-topic question. Does anyone know if Photoshop Elements is
> going to go on the same business model? If so, I better buy the latest
> edition soon...
it isn't.
> Slightly off-topic question. Does anyone know if Photoshop Elements is
> going to go on the same business model? If so, I better buy the latest
> edition soon...
Bread
May 9, 2013, 12:07:21 PM5/9/13
to
people postpone upgrades for a long time - but I'm pretty sure that the
impact has been much more on the Windows side than on the Mac side.
What percentage of folks are still using XP?
As compared to folks using Mac OS older than SL?
I think the frequent upgrade cycle on hardware -- and therefore on system
software (since many folks never actually upgrade system software - they
get the next OS when they get their next hardware) -- has been stretching
and stretching. And if they don't upgrade OS, their old app software (like
Photoshop) also doesn't get forced to be upgraded.
The subscription model has lots of the same advantages (for the companies
not for the consumer). Like the absurd cell phone financing model used
in the US, it lowers the up-front cost ("Only $x/mo!") but the sellers
get lots more in the end, and on a regular and predictable basis.
Blech.
bi...@mix.com
May 9, 2013, 12:11:20 PM5/9/13
to
Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> writes:
> Both, since it was Adobe's silly idea to have such an annoying
> authentication system (other wesbites were often working fine at the same
> time), and this new one is equally as silly by the sound of it. It's not
> as if either system was / is going to stop piracy of the applications.
The way to stop piracy is to not over-charge for nor overly restrict the
> Both, since it was Adobe's silly idea to have such an annoying
> authentication system (other wesbites were often working fine at the same
> time), and this new one is equally as silly by the sound of it. It's not
> as if either system was / is going to stop piracy of the applications.
use of one's products...
> They should just stick to the usual serial codes that almost everyone else
> used / uses.
servers, et cetera.
A decent comparison here is Graphic Converter. Of course it doesn't do
everything Photoshop does, but it is nonetheless a very useful tool. And,
if one is wlling to just wait 30 secs after launching it, it can be freely
used, as far as I know, forever. That's the kind of attitude I'm happy
to support (by licensing the software).
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
bi...@mix.com
May 9, 2013, 12:14:37 PM5/9/13
to
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> writes:
> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> greedy-greedy.
The tougher the challenge, the more people will rip into it. Heh.
> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> greedy-greedy.
Message has been deleted
Davoud
May 9, 2013, 12:43:39 PM5/9/13
to
Your Name:
> Ah. The Apple model.
This is alarmist and exaggerated. The oldest of my five Macs in daily
use is an "Early 2008" 17" MacBook Pro 4,1 that is running the latest
CS6 apps (addresses the "constantly updating your computer"
disinformation) under the latest version of Mountain Lion (addresses
the "Apple model" disinformation). After >five years of yeoman service,
I will not complain if this MBP cannot run 10.8. I feel confident that
it will be running Adobe's latest for a couple of more years.
When seven years old Brand X reaches, run the latest it will not, hmm?
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> > There's also an issue of whether the "updates" are required or optional.
> > Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
> > constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
> > now decides you need to have.
Warren Oates:
> > Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
> > constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
> > now decides you need to have.
> Ah. The Apple model.
This is alarmist and exaggerated. The oldest of my five Macs in daily
use is an "Early 2008" 17" MacBook Pro 4,1 that is running the latest
CS6 apps (addresses the "constantly updating your computer"
disinformation) under the latest version of Mountain Lion (addresses
the "Apple model" disinformation). After >five years of yeoman service,
I will not complain if this MBP cannot run 10.8. I feel confident that
it will be running Adobe's latest for a couple of more years.
When seven years old Brand X reaches, run the latest it will not, hmm?
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Davoud
May 9, 2013, 12:46:02 PM5/9/13
to
Tim Streater:
> If Adobe did that, they'd solve their licensing problem. After all, who
> pirates Pages? And at £20 or so, why would anyone bother to do so.
Because it's not bolted down. If it isn't bolted to heavy iron, someone
will steal it.
> If Adobe did that, they'd solve their licensing problem. After all, who
> pirates Pages? And at £20 or so, why would anyone bother to do so.
Because it's not bolted down. If it isn't bolted to heavy iron, someone
will steal it.
JF Mezei
May 9, 2013, 1:24:45 PM5/9/13
to
Has Adobe set a date limit to upgrades to the last version of its "real"
software ?
I am at CS5.5 , so wondering when I have to upgrade to CS-6
software ?
I am at CS5.5 , so wondering when I have to upgrade to CS-6
George Kerby
May 9, 2013, 1:36:27 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/8/13 10:46 PM, in article 080520132346374679%nos...@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnkom2t7....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
>> Photoshop from pre CS days.
>
> on windows maybe. not on a mac they aren't.
>
I guess I am having hallucinations, then...
> In article <slrnkom2t7....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
>> Photoshop from pre CS days.
>
> on windows maybe. not on a mac they aren't.
>
> anyway, if someone is still using 15 year old photoshop, why would they
> suddenly upgrade now?
George Kerby
May 9, 2013, 1:40:31 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/9/13 6:23 AM, in article
518b8724$0$15251$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com, "Warren Oates"
<warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <080520132346344540%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <518ae132$0$28654$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Aside from which, Adobe has been calling home for years. I've got a
>>> hosts file that blocks it.
>>
>> only for activation. after that, there's no need.
>
> Not so. It would 'phone home every time you made minor changes in your
> software/hardware configuration. Are you paid to suck Adobe's dick?
I get the idea that he 'gets off' from arguments more than anything...
> In article <080520132346344540%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <518ae132$0$28654$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Aside from which, Adobe has been calling home for years. I've got a
>>> hosts file that blocks it.
>>
>> only for activation. after that, there's no need.
>
> Not so. It would 'phone home every time you made minor changes in your
> software/hardware configuration. Are you paid to suck Adobe's dick?
nospam
May 9, 2013, 2:05:27 PM5/9/13
to
In article <CDB148CB.9B566%ghost_...@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> > anyway, if someone is still using 15 year old photoshop, why would they
> > suddenly upgrade now?
>
> I keep CS4 on because CS5 and later have dropped the TWAIN import engine.
those aren't that old.
he said 'pre cs days'.
pre cs, i.e., photoshop 7 and earlier, will *not* run on recent macs.
photoshop 6 requires classic (and had problems) and photoshop 7 doesn't
work in leopard. in order to run pre-cs photoshop, you'd need to go
back to tiger or earlier. that's rather old.
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> >> Photoshop from pre CS days.
> >
> > on windows maybe. not on a mac they aren't.
>
> I guess I am having hallucinations, then...
you must be.
> >> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
> >> Photoshop from pre CS days.
> >
> > on windows maybe. not on a mac they aren't.
>
> I guess I am having hallucinations, then...
> > anyway, if someone is still using 15 year old photoshop, why would they
> > suddenly upgrade now?
>
> I keep CS4 on because CS5 and later have dropped the TWAIN import engine.
he said 'pre cs days'.
pre cs, i.e., photoshop 7 and earlier, will *not* run on recent macs.
photoshop 6 requires classic (and had problems) and photoshop 7 doesn't
work in leopard. in order to run pre-cs photoshop, you'd need to go
back to tiger or earlier. that's rather old.
Warren Oates
May 9, 2013, 2:12:15 PM5/9/13
to
In article <090520131243398044%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
>
> This is alarmist and exaggerated. The oldest of my five Macs in daily
> use is an "Early 2008" 17" MacBook Pro 4,1 that is running the latest
> CS6 apps (addresses the "constantly updating your computer"
> disinformation) under the latest version of Mountain Lion (addresses
> the "Apple model" disinformation). After >five years of yeoman service,
> I will not complain if this MBP cannot run 10.8. I feel confident that
> it will be running Adobe's latest for a couple of more years.
Well, my Mac Pro 1,1 "won't run" ML or FCPX (and friends). Officially.
Unofficially, FCPX works just fine. Apple wouldn't sell it to me though,
so I "borrowed" a copy (and friends) from a friend. Officially, it won't
work, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay for it (on this machine); "Why
would I buy a caravan with no fackin wheels?"
ML will apparently work just fine too, if you hackintosh your macintosh.
Dunno if I'm up for it.
As for FCPX, it's just my graphics card it doesn't like. It complains
every time I launch it, but it still runs. I can probably upgrade the
video card.
Any rate, I actually _like_ FCPX better than the "legacy" FCP. I just
put together some multi-cam stuff, and it _is_ a professional product.
Combined with Motion, it's pretty cool. And Compressor, I guess, but I
think Handbrake and ffmpeg work just as well. None of this software is
very expensive though. But Apple won't sell it to me.
wrote:
>
> This is alarmist and exaggerated. The oldest of my five Macs in daily
> use is an "Early 2008" 17" MacBook Pro 4,1 that is running the latest
> CS6 apps (addresses the "constantly updating your computer"
> disinformation) under the latest version of Mountain Lion (addresses
> the "Apple model" disinformation). After >five years of yeoman service,
> I will not complain if this MBP cannot run 10.8. I feel confident that
> it will be running Adobe's latest for a couple of more years.
Unofficially, FCPX works just fine. Apple wouldn't sell it to me though,
so I "borrowed" a copy (and friends) from a friend. Officially, it won't
work, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay for it (on this machine); "Why
would I buy a caravan with no fackin wheels?"
ML will apparently work just fine too, if you hackintosh your macintosh.
Dunno if I'm up for it.
As for FCPX, it's just my graphics card it doesn't like. It complains
every time I launch it, but it still runs. I can probably upgrade the
video card.
Any rate, I actually _like_ FCPX better than the "legacy" FCP. I just
put together some multi-cam stuff, and it _is_ a professional product.
Combined with Motion, it's pretty cool. And Compressor, I guess, but I
think Handbrake and ffmpeg work just as well. None of this software is
very expensive though. But Apple won't sell it to me.
Fred Moore
May 9, 2013, 2:14:29 PM5/9/13
to
In article <080520131434109908%jimsg...@gmail.com>,
Jim Gibson <jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-9ACA8D....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <080520131345093835%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> > > >
> > > > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > > > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
> > >
> > > where did you see that?
> >
> > <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> > 13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
> > No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
>
> On this web page:
>
> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc>
>
> Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.,
> states the policy:
>
> "One final point I'd like to address is the misconception that you have
> to be continuously connected to the Internet to use a CC application.
> Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to
> the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment
> can go for as long as 99 days."
Thanks for the solid reference, Jim. Good to have the info from an
authority.
Jim Gibson <jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-9ACA8D....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <080520131345093835%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <fmoore-922FC3....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > the only issue is if your internet is down *at the same time* it needs
> > > > > to ping the server, which is about once a month.
> > > >
> > > > I read elsewhere 'every 99 days'. Is there an authoritative reference
> > > > for the period? Or perhaps it varries by type of subscription.
> > >
> > > where did you see that?
> >
> > <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d07may20
> > 13>, the long Brian MacDougall post about halfway down that day's posts.
> > No idea where he got the number. Suppose it could be an error.
>
> On this web page:
>
> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc>
>
> Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.,
> states the policy:
>
> "One final point I'd like to address is the misconception that you have
> to be continuously connected to the Internet to use a CC application.
> Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to
> the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment
> can go for as long as 99 days."
Thanks for the solid reference, Jim. Good to have the info from an
authority.
Fred Moore
May 9, 2013, 2:27:28 PM5/9/13
to
In article <copespaz-D71D4D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Best summary I've seen of the situation! Thanks.
Fred Moore
May 9, 2013, 2:32:07 PM5/9/13
to
In article <518bdbdd$0$38939$c3e8da3$dbd...@news.astraweb.com>,
June, but don't know if that's beginning or end (or as long as you can
find someone to sell you a copy of CS6).
find someone to sell you a copy of CS6).
Bread
May 9, 2013, 2:32:31 PM5/9/13
to
On 2013-05-09 16:43:39 +0000, Davoud said:
> Your Name:
>>> There's also an issue of whether the "updates" are required or optional.
>>> Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
>>> constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
>>> now decides you need to have.
>
> Warren Oates:
>> Ah. The Apple model.
>
> This is alarmist and exaggerated. The oldest of my five Macs in daily
> use is an "Early 2008" 17" MacBook Pro 4,1 that is running the latest
> CS6 apps (addresses the "constantly updating your computer"
> disinformation) under the latest version of Mountain Lion (addresses
> the "Apple model" disinformation).
I'm typing this on a mid '07 MBP - running latest ML, etc. It's probably
> Your Name:
>>> There's also an issue of whether the "updates" are required or optional.
>>> Igf they're required, then you're also going to have to add in the cost of
>>> constantly updating your computer / operating system to match what Adobe
>>> now decides you need to have.
>
> Warren Oates:
>> Ah. The Apple model.
>
> This is alarmist and exaggerated. The oldest of my five Macs in daily
> use is an "Early 2008" 17" MacBook Pro 4,1 that is running the latest
> CS6 apps (addresses the "constantly updating your computer"
> disinformation) under the latest version of Mountain Lion (addresses
> the "Apple model" disinformation).
the very oldest machine which can run the most up-to-date stuff.
FWIW, I plan on 3 yrs, expect 5 or 6 (ie. I'd be disapointed if the machine
didn't hold out longer than that, but not terribly pissed), and am quite
pleased to get more than that. I retired an '06 iMac a few months ago -
which never was able to go up to Lion. (That wasn't the only reason -
but it was a factor. It still runs SL though.)
5 or 6 years seems about as long as you can really hope for and anything
longer is a gift (and almost certain to be running an outdated OS which
no longer gets security updates).
> After >five years of yeoman service,
> I will not complain if this MBP cannot run 10.8. I feel confident that
> it will be running Adobe's latest for a couple of more years.
>
> When seven years old Brand X reaches, run the latest it will not, hmm?
windows machines to keep running XP. And lots of them do. Often as not
on ancient hardware, too.
I think XP was the eye opener for Adobe - with that one, they realized
that loads of folks have all the horsepower they care for, aren't going to
update hardware, and therefore, won't update software. So they've got
to go to a subscription model to be able to squeeze money out of those
folks in the future.
Per an article I saw with information dated early April 2013, almost 39% of
desktop machines out there are still XP. And almost 45% Win7.
That's *all* desktops - including Macs which were at 2.65%, 1.8% and 1.9%
respectively for 10.8, 10.7 and 10.6. About 30% of Macs are still 10.6.
If you scale out the non-Windows OSs, then well over 40% of Windows users
are still using an 11+ year old OS.
And if they aren't updating the OS, they are probably not updating their
Photoshop, either.
Of course, Apple charges a pittance for an OS update nowadays (ML was $20),
while MS still charges an arm and a leg. For myself, that's a big part of
why when *I* run Windows (via Parallels), it's still an old copy of XP, too.
If Win8 were $20-30, I'd have bought two or three copies so I'd have it on
the office machine and desktop at home, rather than only the one XP on the
MBP.
Fred Moore
May 9, 2013, 2:38:20 PM5/9/13
to
In article <518b86c7$0$15251$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com>,
and the appropriate sting where the authorization is stored, and one
could re-authorize it oneself if one was so inclined, right? Or am I
over-simplifying? (I ask this strictly out of technical interest, not in
hopes of defeating Adobe!)
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> greedy-greedy.
Interesting point, Warren. All one would have to do is locate the file
> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> greedy-greedy.
and the appropriate sting where the authorization is stored, and one
could re-authorize it oneself if one was so inclined, right? Or am I
over-simplifying? (I ask this strictly out of technical interest, not in
hopes of defeating Adobe!)
Laszlo Lebrun
May 9, 2013, 2:53:58 PM5/9/13
to
On 07.05.2013 23:21, Your Name wrote:
> I said a while ago that the idiotic "Cloud" nonsense would lead to back to
> the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
> all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
> ... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
> companies will soon be doing the same stupidity.:-(
I couldn't agree more!
Even Canonical in the Linux world is on that trip...
The good side of the medal, is that Snow Leopard, Windows 7 and Ubuntu
10.04 are still running well and can perfectly run the CS2 goodie that
Adobe generously provided on its Internet website together with EULAs
that permits everybody to run it legally as long as they want.
It covers perfectly all my needs.
;-)
I don't need to live on the bleeding edge.
Indeed for most of the major software packages, new versions consist of
95% old stuff sometimes repacked in a new design, but having almost no
real added value.
The only exception being video editing, where HD abilities and support
for powerful GPUs are cruelly missing in old versions.
Regards
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
> I said a while ago that the idiotic "Cloud" nonsense would lead to back to
> the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
> all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
> ... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
> companies will soon be doing the same stupidity.:-(
I couldn't agree more!
Even Canonical in the Linux world is on that trip...
The good side of the medal, is that Snow Leopard, Windows 7 and Ubuntu
10.04 are still running well and can perfectly run the CS2 goodie that
Adobe generously provided on its Internet website together with EULAs
that permits everybody to run it legally as long as they want.
It covers perfectly all my needs.
;-)
I don't need to live on the bleeding edge.
Indeed for most of the major software packages, new versions consist of
95% old stuff sometimes repacked in a new design, but having almost no
real added value.
The only exception being video editing, where HD abilities and support
for powerful GPUs are cruelly missing in old versions.
Regards
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
Suze
May 9, 2013, 3:03:35 PM5/9/13
to
including pdf's, exports to any image format, runs on SL and ML, is
relatively easy to use with several bells and whistles built in, runs
fast, and costs $15.
My favorite use is snapshotting two screen sections, open one in
Pixelmator, drag in the other one to my desired position, and exporting
the merged images to pdf. (used in my work). It's so simple and so easy,
no flatting, no merging, just do it and export and it's done.
--
Live every day like it's your last--someday you'll be right.
Fred Moore
May 9, 2013, 3:28:43 PM5/9/13
to
In article <fmoore-79CA92....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
update: from today's Macintouch Apps forums
<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d09may20
13>:
**
Charles Reeves, Jr.
I was told today that I could still purchase CS6 upgrades to the two
Adobe applications I use most, Illustrator and Photoshop, until May 14.
But it isn't obvious how to order these from Adobe's web site. All you
see is the Creative Cloud crap. After spending at least 30 minutes in a
very frustrating Chat Window session, where "Jenny" of course tried to
sell me CC, she finally gave me the link to the page
<http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalo
g_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10> where these can be
ordered.
This in itself is confusing, since it looks like you can only purchase
the full packages from this page, not upgrades. But if you click on
"Buy" you are given the opportunity to select what you want. BTW, I
upgraded from CS5 (not 5.5); don't know if the link above will work for
other upgrades, or if they are even available.
**
<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/index.html#d09may20
13>:
**
Charles Reeves, Jr.
I was told today that I could still purchase CS6 upgrades to the two
Adobe applications I use most, Illustrator and Photoshop, until May 14.
But it isn't obvious how to order these from Adobe's web site. All you
see is the Creative Cloud crap. After spending at least 30 minutes in a
very frustrating Chat Window session, where "Jenny" of course tried to
sell me CC, she finally gave me the link to the page
<http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalo
g_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10> where these can be
ordered.
This in itself is confusing, since it looks like you can only purchase
the full packages from this page, not upgrades. But if you click on
"Buy" you are given the opportunity to select what you want. BTW, I
upgraded from CS5 (not 5.5); don't know if the link above will work for
other upgrades, or if they are even available.
**
JF Mezei
May 9, 2013, 3:31:19 PM5/9/13
to
One thing needs to be checked:
Say your internet connection is down for a lengthy period (during which
your licence expires and needs renewed over the internet).
Will setting the computer's clock back to a "valid" period re-enable the
software ?
(say your licence is valid from 01-jun-2013 to 01-sep-2013), would
setting the clock to 01-jul-2013 in september re-enable the software ?
Say your internet connection is down for a lengthy period (during which
your licence expires and needs renewed over the internet).
Will setting the computer's clock back to a "valid" period re-enable the
software ?
(say your licence is valid from 01-jun-2013 to 01-sep-2013), would
setting the clock to 01-jul-2013 in september re-enable the software ?
Warren Oates
May 9, 2013, 4:06:42 PM5/9/13
to
because of something called ImageReady, which disappeared around the
time of the first Clinton administration ...
(You can run CS2 on XP, which I have on a laptop, but apparently "it's
not the same, they don't have the 'transitions' they only have 'slices'"
and I'm like "move on fergawdsake.")
bi...@mix.com
May 9, 2013, 4:26:01 PM5/9/13
to
much more difficult to circumvent. Since Adobe is betting the
company's future on it, I suspect they would, too.
It's not much work - don't allow reauthorization based on the
host's clock, compare last launch time to the current time, look
at some file timestamps, times in metadata, et cetera. And don't
provide much info in error messages.
George Kerby
May 9, 2013, 4:26:04 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/9/13 1:05 PM, in article 090520131405272919%nos...@nospam.invalid,
as "pre CS5": Old Fart Disease.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:09:54 PM5/9/13
to
In article <kmgi1d$luh$2...@reader1.panix.com>, bi...@MIX.COM wrote:
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> > by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> > greedy-greedy.
>
> The tougher the challenge, the more people will rip into it. Heh.
It's probably already been hacked and pirated. Such schemes are simply a
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
> > by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
> > greedy-greedy.
>
> The tougher the challenge, the more people will rip into it. Heh.
waste of everyone's time and a waste of money for the software company (as
well as the music, movie and ebook companies) - if someone wants to pirate
it they will, and if nobody wants to pirate it then nobody is buying it
anyway.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:11:57 PM5/9/13
to
In article <timstreater-9FD8...@news.individual.net>, Tim
Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
about the money, it's about the selfish greed.
Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> If Adobe did that, they'd solve their licensing problem. After all, who
> pirates Pages? And at �20 or so, why would anyone bother to do so.
Believe me, people do. They pirate 0.99c music. For some people it's not
> If Adobe did that, they'd solve their licensing problem. After all, who
> pirates Pages? And at �20 or so, why would anyone bother to do so.
about the money, it's about the selfish greed.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:15:37 PM5/9/13
to
In article <090520131246026632%st...@sky.net>, a...@bbb.ccc wrote:
> Tim Streater:
> >
> > If Adobe did that, they'd solve their licensing problem. After all, who
> > pirates Pages? And at £20 or so, why would anyone bother to do so.
>
> Because it's not bolted down. If it isn't bolted to heavy iron, someone
> will steal it.
Some people will steal it even if it is bolted down. :-(
> Tim Streater:
> >
> > If Adobe did that, they'd solve their licensing problem. After all, who
> > pirates Pages? And at £20 or so, why would anyone bother to do so.
>
> Because it's not bolted down. If it isn't bolted to heavy iron, someone
> will steal it.
I know people who have had big driveway gates stole, others who have had
iMacs sstolen despite being chained down with lock cables, etc.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:18:57 PM5/9/13
to
In article <518bdbdd$0$38939$c3e8da3$dbd...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
would be in June (or was it July?) this year, so basically the cut-off for
buying CS6 will be whenever the stores, or eBay, run out of boxes after
that.
Of course, if you've got CS3 or newer then you qualify for a "cheaper"
upgrade to the so-called "Cloud" versions ... but only for one year, then
you have to pay the same as any new-comer.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:20:29 PM5/9/13
to
In article <090520131405272919%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
"Old" is a perception. Tiger is still easily usable, as is Mac OS X 10.1
and OS 9 - I still use both daily.
and OS 9 - I still use both daily.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:26:09 PM5/9/13
to
In article <kmgq3v$54d$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
also need newer versions of the operating systems and faster / more
powerful chips. It's unclear whether these so-called "Cloud" versions will
enforce such upgrades by simply removing older versions and making updates
aa required necessity rather than an option.
Even WHEN they eventually go to a proper Cloud versions you'll still have
to keep upgrading your web browser, copmputer and operating system.
Nope, this silly change is solely about grabbing more money while doing as
little as possible - they can't think of any good reasons or actually
useful features to add to entice customers to upgrade to new versions, so
instead they'll make them pay a monthly fee. :-(
<BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
>
> I think XP was the eye opener for Adobe - with that one, they realized
> that loads of folks have all the horsepower they care for, aren't going to
> update hardware, and therefore, won't update software. So they've got
> to go to a subscription model to be able to squeeze money out of those
> folks in the future.
That won't work. Newer versions of the so-called "Cloud" applications will
>
> I think XP was the eye opener for Adobe - with that one, they realized
> that loads of folks have all the horsepower they care for, aren't going to
> update hardware, and therefore, won't update software. So they've got
> to go to a subscription model to be able to squeeze money out of those
> folks in the future.
also need newer versions of the operating systems and faster / more
powerful chips. It's unclear whether these so-called "Cloud" versions will
enforce such upgrades by simply removing older versions and making updates
aa required necessity rather than an option.
Even WHEN they eventually go to a proper Cloud versions you'll still have
to keep upgrading your web browser, copmputer and operating system.
Nope, this silly change is solely about grabbing more money while doing as
little as possible - they can't think of any good reasons or actually
useful features to add to entice customers to upgrade to new versions, so
instead they'll make them pay a monthly fee. :-(
JF Mezei
May 9, 2013, 5:27:59 PM5/9/13
to
I called Adobe. This is what I was told:
The purchase of CS-6 is still permitted but it is considered a "special"
which could end at any time.
CS 6 is no longer available on DVD. And the TOS forbid one to save the
distribution media. AKA: if you need to re-install, you are a slave to
Adobe's web site allowing you to re-install.
The guy on phone told me that most are very against the ove, but some
like it.
I was not able to upgrade Indesign CS4. Only CS5 and 5.5 versions
allowed an upgrade to 6.
So I had to purchase the "master collection" upgrade.
But since this is my last purchase from Adobe, I figured I would make
this last.
Not comfortable becoming a slave to a web site if I need to re-install
software.
The purchase of CS-6 is still permitted but it is considered a "special"
which could end at any time.
CS 6 is no longer available on DVD. And the TOS forbid one to save the
distribution media. AKA: if you need to re-install, you are a slave to
Adobe's web site allowing you to re-install.
The guy on phone told me that most are very against the ove, but some
like it.
I was not able to upgrade Indesign CS4. Only CS5 and 5.5 versions
allowed an upgrade to 6.
So I had to purchase the "master collection" upgrade.
But since this is my last purchase from Adobe, I figured I would make
this last.
Not comfortable becoming a slave to a web site if I need to re-install
software.
Your Name
May 9, 2013, 5:30:05 PM5/9/13
to
In article <replytome-7C0F1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Last time I looked Pixelmator doesn't do any CMYK, but that was a while
ago, so it may have changed by now. Graphic Converter converts CMYK images
back to RGB when you open them and can't save as CMYK.
I'm still using an ancient version of ColorIt! which was free on a
magazine cover disk (yes, floppy disk). Although you can't work on CMYK
images very easily, you can convert them to CMYK at the final step.
ago, so it may have changed by now. Graphic Converter converts CMYK images
back to RGB when you open them and can't save as CMYK.
I'm still using an ancient version of ColorIt! which was free on a
magazine cover disk (yes, floppy disk). Although you can't work on CMYK
images very easily, you can convert them to CMYK at the final step.
bi...@mix.com
May 9, 2013, 5:45:09 PM5/9/13
to
Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> writes:
> Believe me, people do. They pirate 0.99c music. For some people it's not
> about the money, it's about the selfish greed.
Speaking as one who receives royalties from iTunes, I'm quite happy
> Believe me, people do. They pirate 0.99c music. For some people it's not
> about the money, it's about the selfish greed.
with what I get, and I really don't care about piracy.
nospam
May 9, 2013, 6:15:59 PM5/9/13
to
In article
<YourName-100...@203-118-187-37.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
the number of users still using tiger is negligible. it barely makes
the charts, nevermind earlier systems.
this has tiger at 2% and anything before that at 0.14% or less (depends
if it's 'undetected' or 'other').
<http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share_by_os_version.php?
timeframe=last_6&interval=month&chart_id=4&limit%5B%5D=mac>
<YourName-100...@203-118-187-37.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > photoshop 6 requires classic (and had problems) and photoshop 7 doesn't
> > work in leopard. in order to run pre-cs photoshop, you'd need to go
> > back to tiger or earlier. that's rather old.
>
> "Old" is a perception. Tiger is still easily usable, as is Mac OS X 10.1
> and OS 9 - I still use both daily.
you're one of the only people to still be using 10.1.
> > photoshop 6 requires classic (and had problems) and photoshop 7 doesn't
> > work in leopard. in order to run pre-cs photoshop, you'd need to go
> > back to tiger or earlier. that's rather old.
>
> "Old" is a perception. Tiger is still easily usable, as is Mac OS X 10.1
> and OS 9 - I still use both daily.
the number of users still using tiger is negligible. it barely makes
the charts, nevermind earlier systems.
this has tiger at 2% and anything before that at 0.14% or less (depends
if it's 'undetected' or 'other').
<http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share_by_os_version.php?
timeframe=last_6&interval=month&chart_id=4&limit%5B%5D=mac>
Message has been deleted
Savageduck
May 9, 2013, 8:09:37 PM5/9/13
to
On 2013-05-09 06:29:47 -0700, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:
> On 13-05-08 22:32, Lewis wrote:
>
>> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
>> Photoshop from pre CS days.
>
CS4 to CS5, all delivered via DVD not download. I had considered some
of the new features in CS6 and possibly upgrading. After the CC
announcement I explored what options I might have to make the upgrade
from PS CS5 to CS6.
Adobe is no longer offering that upgrade anywhere on their site. So I
called their customer service and after stating that I was not
enthusiastic about the CC concept, I was told that I could still
purchase the CS6 upgrade via customer service as a download only, as
they had already done away with DVD distribution. So at that point I
chose to make that purchase, as I saw this as my last Photoshop update.
> Adobe should have had a transition from the old system to the monthly
> rental plan and only killed the real upgrades once the rental plan had
> grown to a point where they could kill the old model.
I believe for the Creative Suite products such as Photoshop, Adobe is
committed to the Creative Cloud plan and has no intention of
backtracking to either a DVD or download delivery of future editions of
CS.
I just don't see it, an upgrade costs me $199 and I own it. With the CC
rental plan I would be paying $20/month after 10 months I own nothing.
I might not have to buy additional upgrades as that is handled via the
CC, but then I am on the hook forever and I wouldn't even have whatever
new features I pay for with the CC plan. I have no incentive to get on
the CC ride. So CS6 is going to be the end of the Photoshop road for me.
I also use LR4 and I will get whatever updates are available for that,
until Adobe does something silly with that.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
> On 13-05-08 22:32, Lewis wrote:
>
>> That "Eventually" may be many many years. I know people that are using
>> Photoshop from pre CS days.
>
> The big gamble here is that people will just stop upgrading period, and
> that may result in a huge drop in revenues at Adobe.
Yup! I paid $199 each for upgrades from PS CS(full retail) to CS2 To
> that may result in a huge drop in revenues at Adobe.
CS4 to CS5, all delivered via DVD not download. I had considered some
of the new features in CS6 and possibly upgrading. After the CC
announcement I explored what options I might have to make the upgrade
from PS CS5 to CS6.
Adobe is no longer offering that upgrade anywhere on their site. So I
called their customer service and after stating that I was not
enthusiastic about the CC concept, I was told that I could still
purchase the CS6 upgrade via customer service as a download only, as
they had already done away with DVD distribution. So at that point I
chose to make that purchase, as I saw this as my last Photoshop update.
> Adobe should have had a transition from the old system to the monthly
> rental plan and only killed the real upgrades once the rental plan had
> grown to a point where they could kill the old model.
committed to the Creative Cloud plan and has no intention of
backtracking to either a DVD or download delivery of future editions of
CS.
I just don't see it, an upgrade costs me $199 and I own it. With the CC
rental plan I would be paying $20/month after 10 months I own nothing.
I might not have to buy additional upgrades as that is handled via the
CC, but then I am on the hook forever and I wouldn't even have whatever
new features I pay for with the CC plan. I have no incentive to get on
the CC ride. So CS6 is going to be the end of the Photoshop road for me.
I also use LR4 and I will get whatever updates are available for that,
until Adobe does something silly with that.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
May 9, 2013, 8:09:41 PM5/9/13
to
On 2013-05-09 08:13:41 -0700, David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.mac.com> said:
> In article <518b86c7$0$15251$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <080520132346364618%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> In article <518b86c7$0$15251$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <YourName-090...@203-118-187-61.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your
>>
>>> In article
>>> Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except that in this system if it can't connect to Adobe, then it can't
>>>> verify your subscription is paid and the software simply won't run ...
>>>
>>> this is totally false.
>>>
>>> it verifies it once a month for monthly customers and about every 3
>>> months for yearly customers.
>>>
>>> the rest of the time, no internet connection is needed.
>>>
>>>> which is still going to be a pain in the sit-upon for those with flakey
>>>> internetconnections (Adobe's silly authentication process in the past was
>>>> already often abysmally bad).
>>>
>>> no it wasn't. it either did it online or you called. no big deal.
>>
>> Or you blocked them. My CS5 never calls home, and never stops working.
>>
>> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
>> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
>> greedy-greedy.
>
> Slightly off-topic question. Does anyone know if Photoshop Elements is
>> We're legit with our software, but the blocking technique was developed
>> by pirates who will most certainly find ways of blocking Adobe's newest
>> greedy-greedy.
>
> going to go on the same business model? If so, I better buy the latest
> edition soon...
No. PSE and Lightroom remain available for DVD purchase.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
May 9, 2013, 8:17:53 PM5/9/13
to
On 2013-05-09 10:24:45 -0700, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:
> Has Adobe set a date limit to upgrades to the last version of its "real"
> software ?
>
> I am at CS5.5 , so wondering when I have to upgrade to CS-6
CS5 to CS6 upgrade is only available as a download from Adobe sales for $199.
> Has Adobe set a date limit to upgrades to the last version of its "real"
> software ?
>
> I am at CS5.5 , so wondering when I have to upgrade to CS-6
There is no information on this upgrade on their site. I just upgraded
after calling their sales/service number 800-585-0774.
...and that is going to be the end of the upgrade road for me.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bread
May 9, 2013, 8:21:51 PM5/9/13
to
http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/
I used an earlier version a few years ago and liked it. This latest
release, 4.0, which just came out, looks to be excellent and very
inexpensive.
Savageduck
May 9, 2013, 8:21:56 PM5/9/13
to
Pixelmator is a great value, and useful tool for those not needing to
spend on PS or PSE.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
JF Mezei
May 9, 2013, 9:51:51 PM5/9/13
to
On 13-05-09 20:17, Savageduck wrote:
> CS5 to CS6 upgrade is only available as a download from Adobe sales for $199.
I had to pay $1049 USD.
> CS5 to CS6 upgrade is only available as a download from Adobe sales for $199.
I was at Production predmium 5.5 and Indesign 4.
There was no upgrade possible for Indesign. And it turned out cheaper to
upgrade to the master collection at 1049 than to pay the $375 Production
Premium upgrade and then purchase a new copy of InDesign.
Savageduck
May 9, 2013, 10:17:56 PM5/9/13
to
upgrade. I don't use any other parts of the Creative Suite.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Davoud
May 9, 2013, 11:34:37 PM5/9/13
to
Your Name:
on, one's own computer.
> The good side of the medal, is that Snow Leopard, Windows 7 and Ubuntu
> 10.04 are still running well and can perfectly run the CS2 goodie that
> Adobe generously provided on its Internet website together with EULAs
> that permits everybody to run it legally as long as they want.
> It covers perfectly all my needs.
The better news is that Mountain Lion can run CS6 or CC. A CS2 version,
would not cover my needs or those of most creative professionals.
> I don't need to live on the bleeding edge.
Adobe focuses on reliability and useful features more than bleeding
and image alignment and stacking.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> > I said a while ago that the idiotic "Cloud" nonsense would lead to back to
> > the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
> > all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
> > ... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
> > companies will soon be doing the same stupidity.:-(
Laszlo Lebrun:
> > the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
> > all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
> > ... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
> > companies will soon be doing the same stupidity.:-(
> I couldn't agree more!
>
> Even Canonical in the Linux world is on that trip...
But Adobe is not. The CC applications download to, install on, and run
>
> Even Canonical in the Linux world is on that trip...
on, one's own computer.
> The good side of the medal, is that Snow Leopard, Windows 7 and Ubuntu
> 10.04 are still running well and can perfectly run the CS2 goodie that
> Adobe generously provided on its Internet website together with EULAs
> that permits everybody to run it legally as long as they want.
> It covers perfectly all my needs.
would not cover my needs or those of most creative professionals.
> I don't need to live on the bleeding edge.
edge.
> Indeed for most of the major software packages, new versions consist of
> 95% old stuff sometimes repacked in a new design, but having almost no
> real added value.
CS5 and CS6 both added value for me, particularly in adjustment layers
> Indeed for most of the major software packages, new versions consist of
> 95% old stuff sometimes repacked in a new design, but having almost no
> real added value.
and image alignment and stacking.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Your Name
May 10, 2013, 2:34:01 AM5/10/13
to
In article <518c14e1$0$44658$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
Technically you already have to do that with Mac OS as well, but people
have documentated ways around it and Adobe's silly new system will be no
different.
have documentated ways around it and Adobe's silly new system will be no
different.
Your Name
May 10, 2013, 2:35:40 AM5/10/13
to
In article <kmh5d5$cr0$2...@reader1.panix.com>, bi...@MIX.COM wrote:
> Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> writes:
>
> > Believe me, people do. They pirate 0.99c music. For some people it's not
> > about the money, it's about the selfish greed.
>
> Speaking as one who receives royalties from iTunes, I'm quite happy
> with what I get, and I really don't care about piracy.
Lower prices means more people are incliided to buy it and less piracy,
> Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> writes:
>
> > Believe me, people do. They pirate 0.99c music. For some people it's not
> > about the money, it's about the selfish greed.
>
> Speaking as one who receives royalties from iTunes, I'm quite happy
> with what I get, and I really don't care about piracy.
but you'll never stamp out piracy completely thanks to human selfishness
and greed.
Your Name
May 10, 2013, 2:37:43 AM5/10/13
to
In article <090520131815594800%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
That will be according to some useless survey-type system (usually based
on web browser data), which as I've said numerous times are not accurate.
I know a few poepl still using "old" Macs that won't ever register on such
silly surveys because they simply aren't used for web browsing.
on web browser data), which as I've said numerous times are not accurate.
I know a few poepl still using "old" Macs that won't ever register on such
silly surveys because they simply aren't used for web browsing.
Your Name
May 10, 2013, 2:43:13 AM5/10/13
to
In article <2013050917093716807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
licence to use it within the restructions of the licencing agreement.
> I also use LR4 and I will get whatever updates are available for that,
> until Adobe does something silly with that.
All the other Adobe software will quickly follow the same path, as will
software from many other companies.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> I just don't see it, an upgrade costs me $199 and I own it.
Technically you don't actually own most software. You're purchasing a
>
> I just don't see it, an upgrade costs me $199 and I own it.
licence to use it within the restructions of the licencing agreement.
> I also use LR4 and I will get whatever updates are available for that,
> until Adobe does something silly with that.
software from many other companies.
Your Name
May 10, 2013, 2:44:18 AM5/10/13
to
In article <2013050917094175249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
For the moment, but don't expect that to last long (unless this CC only
idiocy falls flat on it's face as it should do).
idiocy falls flat on it's face as it should do).
Your Name
May 10, 2013, 2:50:57 AM5/10/13
to
In article <090520132334370370%st...@sky.net>, a...@bbb.ccc wrote:
> Your Name:
> > > I said a while ago that the idiotic "Cloud" nonsense would lead to back to
> > > the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
> > > all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
> > > ... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
> > > companies will soon be doing the same stupidity.:-(
>
> Laszlo Lebrun:
> > I couldn't agree more!
> >
> > Even Canonical in the Linux world is on that trip...
>
> But Adobe is not. The CC applications download to, install on, and run
> on, one's own computer.
At the moment.
> Your Name:
> > > I said a while ago that the idiotic "Cloud" nonsense would lead to back to
> > > the bad old days of people simply having dumb terminals on their desk with
> > > all the storage and processing done by servers accessed via the internet
> > > ... and here's the beginning of the end. All the other big software
> > > companies will soon be doing the same stupidity.:-(
>
> Laszlo Lebrun:
> > I couldn't agree more!
> >
> > Even Canonical in the Linux world is on that trip...
>
> But Adobe is not. The CC applications download to, install on, and run
> on, one's own computer.
If Adobe actually had people with common sense in management (which
apparently doesn't exist in any management), they would charge a sensible
price for their software and do away with all the over-complicated
differing packages. Ignoring the silly "Cloud" versions, it costs more to
buy about five pieces of software than it does to buy a high-end iMac to
run them on ... which is simply insane.
Warren Oates
May 10, 2013, 8:06:51 AM5/10/13
to
In article
<YourName-100...@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Yeah. I have a whole folder of Mac OS's going back to Tiger (and one
System 8). I have a bootable 9.2.x on a hard drive. Some of them are
even legit.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner
<YourName-100...@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
System 8). I have a bootable 9.2.x on a hard drive. Some of them are
even legit.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages