Paint Shop Pro 7 (for FREE)

414 views
Skip to first unread message

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 4:54:10 PM4/14/15
to
Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold it to
Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
anyone know where a person can download the free version?

I went to some of the old app websites (oldapps.com) etc., and all i am
finding is the 30 day demo.

I'm sure that Corel would not only be costly, but would not sell the
older versions. Just wondering if anyone knows where to download the
free version. (which is probably 12 or more years old).

Thanks

Nil

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 5:26:34 PM4/14/15
to
On 14 Apr 2015, rada...@nospam.com wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold
> it to Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold
> out. Does anyone know where a person can download the free
> version?

I've been using Paint Shop Pro since about ver. 3, and I kept up with
it until ver. 9, which I still use. I don't remember it ever being
given away for free. I highly doubt that ever happened.

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 6:02:21 PM4/14/15
to
I found several older discussion groups (web based, not usenet), which
said it did happen....

I have PSP 3.x 4.x and 5.x all registered. Nothing after that. I would
not want anything newer than version 7. Too much bloat! I probably dont
even need 7, but as discussed on here in another thread, ver. 7 has a
better screen capture method. (Which does work on the demo).

Bill in Co

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 7:41:32 PM4/14/15
to
I like older versions, too. I think ver 7 was the last unbloated version,
too.
You might be able to find a CD with it for sale on Amazon or eBay
(possibly). Sometimes I can find old software for sale there. Then there
are some other third party sites that sometimes sell old software.


Nil

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 8:17:54 PM4/14/15
to
On 14 Apr 2015, rada...@nospam.com wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> I found several older discussion groups (web based, not usenet),
> which said it did happen....

I'm sure there are lots of you can find pirated versions downloadable
for free, just like you can music and movies. And since Jasc hasn't
existed for many years, I doubt that anyone cares. But I'm quite sure
that Jasc never gave it away for free.

> I have PSP 3.x 4.x and 5.x all registered. Nothing after that. I
> would not want anything newer than version 7. Too much bloat!

You call it "bloat". I call it useful features. I extensively used
nearly all versions of PSP up to 9, and I found 9 to be the best for
me.

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 8:49:42 PM4/14/15
to
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:41:26 -0600, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I like older versions, too. I think ver 7 was the last unbloated version,
>too.
>You might be able to find a CD with it for sale on Amazon or eBay
>(possibly). Sometimes I can find old software for sale there. Then there
>are some other third party sites that sometimes sell old software.
>

It seems that with all GOOD software, which PSP was. There are just no
more improvements they can make. It's perfect already. To make more
sales, they just add bloat. I use almost all software that is at least
10 years old. Simple is better!

I'll have to look on Amazon - Ebay for a CD.

Btw: I found a newer ver of Photoshop at a rummage sale for a couple
bucks. I installed it and found it so complicated I removed it. And
that's an expensive program, and the ver I got is probably 10 or 12
years old.

Ian Jackson

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 3:38:23 AM4/15/15
to
In message <4ucriad2gbhuth58n...@4ax.com>,
rada...@nospam.com writes
I've got PSP7 (freebie with a magazine). It seems to be portable, ie
doesn't need installation.

The folder size is 42MB, and zips down to 25MB. When attached to an
email, the encoded size is 34MB - which is probably too large. However,
the folder contents could be split, and emailed individually as a series
of zipped folders. For example, two folders are 12MB each (before being
attached), so should be emailable. [If not, three or more folders?] When
received, unzip, and combine.
--
Ian

Ant

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 7:21:49 AM4/15/15
to
>> Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold
>> it to Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold
>> out. Does anyone know where a person can download the free
>> version?
>
> I've been using Paint Shop Pro since about ver. 3, and I kept up with
> it until ver. 9, which I still use. I don't remember it ever being
> given away for free. I highly doubt that ever happened.

Ditto.
--
"Now I have you where I want you... where is my jar of Bull ants?" --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Ant

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 7:22:54 AM4/15/15
to
On 4/15/2015 12:38 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> The folder size is 42MB, and zips down to 25MB. When attached to an
> email, the encoded size is 34MB - which is probably too large. However,
> the folder contents could be split, and emailed individually as a series
> of zipped folders. For example, two folders are 12MB each (before being
> attached), so should be emailable. [If not, three or more folders?] When
> received, unzip, and combine.

Maybe you can post it on a file host service?
--
"Left right left right we're army ants. We swarm we fight. We have no
home. We roam. We race. You're lucky if we miss your place." --Douglas
Florian (The Army Ants Poem)

Paul

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 7:27:47 AM4/15/15
to
Maybe it's already hosted somewhere ?

Use the MD5SUM or SHA1SUM, and do a google search on that
and see if someone already hosts it somewhere.

It might even be listed by the originally delivered file
name. Assuming that is descriptive enough.

Paul

Ian Jackson

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 9:02:52 AM4/15/15
to
In message <neOdnW7OrraW17PI...@earthlink.com>, Ant
<a...@zimage.comANT> writes
>On 4/15/2015 12:38 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
>> The folder size is 42MB, and zips down to 25MB. When attached to an
>> email, the encoded size is 34MB - which is probably too large. However,
>> the folder contents could be split, and emailed individually as a series
>> of zipped folders. For example, two folders are 12MB each (before being
>> attached), so should be emailable. [If not, three or more folders?] When
>> received, unzip, and combine.
>
>Maybe you can post it on a file host service?

It's easier just to mail the zipped pieces direct to a good address.
[Mine works with or without the obvious 'removal.]'

My favourite imaging program is Faststone Viewer. I rarely use PSP, but
one feature it does have, that others don't seem to, is that you can use
'Effects' to correct things like unwanted excessive perspective taper,
barrel and pincushion distortion etc.
--
Ian

Ken Blake, MVP

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 1:16:34 PM4/15/15
to
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:47:59 -0500, rada...@nospam.com wrote:


> It seems that with all GOOD software, which PSP was. There are just no
> more improvements they can make. It's perfect already.


I completely disagree. There's no such thing as "perfect";
improvements can always be made in any piece of software.

And even if something were perfect today, it wouldn't be perfect with
tomorrow's hardware. As new hardware becomes prevalent, all software
can be improved to take better advantage of it.


> To make more
> sales, they just add bloat. I use almost all software that is at least
> 10 years old. Simple is better!


Again, I completely disagree. To take just a single example, the first
airplanes were much simpler than today's. Do you think they were
better?


There are many ways to judge which of two items is better. Yes,
simplicity is often such a factor, but it's far from being the only
one.

Ken Blake, MVP

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 1:33:42 PM4/15/15
to
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:16:07 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:47:59 -0500, rada...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>
> > It seems that with all GOOD software, which PSP was. There are just no
> > more improvements they can make. It's perfect already.
>
>
> I completely disagree. There's no such thing as "perfect";
> improvements can always be made in any piece of software.
>
> And even if something were perfect today, it wouldn't be perfect with
> tomorrow's hardware. As new hardware becomes prevalent, all software
> can be improved to take better advantage of it.


And to add another point to the above: except for trivial software
like "Hello World," there's no such thing as bug-free software. Any
program can be improved by fixing some of the bugs within it.
Message has been deleted

Bill in Co

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 3:07:10 PM4/15/15
to
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:47:59 -0500, rada...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>
>> It seems that with all GOOD software, which PSP was. There are just no
>> more improvements they can make. It's perfect already.
>
>
> I completely disagree. There's no such thing as "perfect";
> improvements can always be made in any piece of software.
>
> And even if something were perfect today, it wouldn't be perfect with
> tomorrow's hardware. As new hardware becomes prevalent, all software
> can be improved to take better advantage of it.

Well, unless it's doing everything it needs to do excellently at the time
(IMO).

>> To make more
>> sales, they just add bloat. I use almost all software that is at least
>> 10 years old. Simple is better!
>
>
> Again, I completely disagree. To take just a single example, the first
> airplanes were much simpler than today's. Do you think they were
> better?

I think the service was better back then, however. :-)

> There are many ways to judge which of two items is better. Yes,
> simplicity is often such a factor, but it's far from being the only
> one.

But so oftentimes ... less can be (and is) more (IMHO).
And that maxim holds true for a lot of things in life - not just software.
:-)


rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 5:11:38 PM4/15/15
to
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:07:07 -0600, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>But so oftentimes ... less can be (and is) more (IMHO).
>And that maxim holds true for a lot of things in life - not just software.
>:-)

If a program with LESS achives the intended goal, such as modifying a
picture, then it's done it's job. If it's got so much MORE that the
user cant understand it, and thus can not get any use out of it, it's
worthless!

To me, Photoshop became worthless over the years, because there was so
many features I had no clue where to even begin. And at that time I had
version 5. I'm sure it's much worse now.

The same it true with the internet (web) these days. So much useless
crap is added to websites that they become worthless. I've shopped Ebay
for years, and lately their site has gone overboard with crap. I thought
it was just my old browser and OS, but I proved that wrong the other
day, while at a high speed WIFI, using XP and one of the later browsers.
It ran so damn slow it was ridiculous. I thought their goal was to make
sales, not produce a site that only a select few people can use. If they
keep adding crap, in another year, I wont use them anymore. THEIR LOSS!

All I want to see are some pictures, a detailed description, and the
price and other details to buy it. I dont need flash movies, things that
jump around on my screen, or cover part of the page (MOST ANNOYING), and
I really wish I could get rid of that damn left side of the screen where
they show "items you looked at". So what if I looked at it. If I was
interested, I'd still have the page open on a tab. If I closed it, I'm
not interested.

As slow as Ebay is getting, it's quicker to just drive to a store and
buy an item.

Bill in Co

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 5:25:33 PM4/15/15
to
rada...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:07:07 -0600, "Bill in Co"
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> But so oftentimes ... less can be (and is) more (IMHO).
>> And that maxim holds true for a lot of things in life - not just
>> software.
>> :-)
>
> If a program with LESS achives the intended goal, such as modifying a
> picture, then it's done it's job. If it's got so much MORE that the
> user cant understand it, and thus can not get any use out of it, it's
> worthless!

Well, to be fair, at least some users like the extra fluff and stuff. Just
not us Luddhites, I guess. :-)

> To me, Photoshop became worthless over the years, because there was so
> many features I had no clue where to even begin. And at that time I had
> version 5. I'm sure it's much worse now.
>
> The same it true with the internet (web) these days. So much useless
> crap is added to websites that they become worthless. I've shopped Ebay
> for years, and lately their site has gone overboard with crap. I thought
> it was just my old browser and OS, but I proved that wrong the other
> day, while at a high speed WIFI, using XP and one of the later browsers.
> It ran so damn slow it was ridiculous. I thought their goal was to make
> sales, not produce a site that only a select few people can use. If they
> keep adding crap, in another year, I wont use them anymore. THEIR LOSS!
>
> All I want to see are some pictures, a detailed description, and the
> price and other details to buy it. I dont need flash movies, things that
> jump around on my screen, or cover part of the page (MOST ANNOYING), and
> I really wish I could get rid of that damn left side of the screen where
> they show "items you looked at". So what if I looked at it. If I was
> interested, I'd still have the page open on a tab. If I closed it, I'm
> not interested.
>
> As slow as Ebay is getting, it's quicker to just drive to a store and
> buy an item.

Well, I think Photoshop has a place for serious photo work, which excludes
me. But I'm sure there are graphic designers or photographers that
appreciate the extra features it has.

As for the web sites, I think it's just a competitive morass, with everyone
trying to outdo each other to attract customers (who are young) to their
site.

And if your site isn't snazzy enough, it gets ignored or bypassed (by the
newage crowd, which is the one who is buying stuff, afterall).


Nil

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 6:09:46 PM4/15/15
to
On 15 Apr 2015, rada...@nospam.com wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> If a program with LESS achives the intended goal, such as
> modifying a picture, then it's done it's job. If it's got so much
> MORE that the user cant understand it, and thus can not get any
> use out of it, it's worthless!

Your ignorance of how to use a software is not an indication of that
software's worth.

> To me, Photoshop became worthless over the years, because there
> was so many features I had no clue where to even begin. And at
> that time I had version 5. I'm sure it's much worse now.

Photoshop is and always was a professional graphics editing tool and it
has a full compliment of fine editing tools. It was never meant for
some homeguy to simply crop his vacation snapshots. The price alone
should have clued you into that.

> I've shopped Ebay for years, and lately their site has gone
> overboard with crap. I thought it was just my old browser and OS,
> but I proved that wrong the other day, while at a high speed WIFI,
> using XP and one of the later browsers. It ran so damn slow it was
> ridiculous.

I look at Ebay almost every day. It doesn't seem slow to me, and my
system is not at all high-powered.

> I thought their goal was to make sales, not produce a
> site that only a select few people can use.

Are you serious? You really think that is their goal? That would be
business suicide, and yet they seem to be doing well. Please tone down
the hyperbole.

> If they keep adding
> crap, in another year, I wont use them anymore. THEIR LOSS!

No, your loss. I don't think they care about you personally.

> All I want to see are some pictures, a detailed description, and
> the price and other details to buy it. I dont need flash movies,
> things that jump around on my screen, or cover part of the page
> (MOST ANNOYING),

I don't recall seeing things jumping around my Ebay screen. Where do
you see that?

> and I really wish I could get rid of that damn
> left side of the screen where they show "items you looked at". So
> what if I looked at it. If I was interested, I'd still have the
> page open on a tab. If I closed it, I'm not interested.

I don't see any "items you looked at". In the My Ebay page I see a
"Summary" column with categories like "Buy", Purchase History",
"Searches you follow", etc. Each category can be collapsed so you don't
see the sub-headings. Why is that a problem?

I have a feeling you would complain no matter what.

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 7:55:28 PM4/15/15
to
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:25:27 -0600, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Well, to be fair, at least some users like the extra fluff and stuff. Just
>not us Luddhites, I guess. :-)
>

The webpages that add all that crap, should have a "click here for
SIMPLE site" at the top of their page. And there is no reason to put
flash videos on a main page. Offer it on a separate page with "click
here to see video".

>> To me, Photoshop became worthless over the years, because there was so
>> many features I had no clue where to even begin. And at that time I had
>> version 5. I'm sure it's much worse now.
>>
>> The same it true with the internet (web) these days. So much useless
>> crap is added to websites that they become worthless. I've shopped Ebay
>> for years, and lately their site has gone overboard with crap. I thought
>> it was just my old browser and OS, but I proved that wrong the other
>> day, while at a high speed WIFI, using XP and one of the later browsers.
>> It ran so damn slow it was ridiculous. I thought their goal was to make
>> sales, not produce a site that only a select few people can use. If they
>> keep adding crap, in another year, I wont use them anymore. THEIR LOSS!
>>
>> All I want to see are some pictures, a detailed description, and the
>> price and other details to buy it. I dont need flash movies, things that
>> jump around on my screen, or cover part of the page (MOST ANNOYING), and
>> I really wish I could get rid of that damn left side of the screen where
>> they show "items you looked at". So what if I looked at it. If I was
>> interested, I'd still have the page open on a tab. If I closed it, I'm
>> not interested.
>>
>> As slow as Ebay is getting, it's quicker to just drive to a store and
>> buy an item.
>
>Well, I think Photoshop has a place for serious photo work, which excludes
>me. But I'm sure there are graphic designers or photographers that
>appreciate the extra features it has.

I do agree that Photoshop is for professonals. And for the price, they
are the only ones who can really afford it.

>As for the web sites, I think it's just a competitive morass, with everyone
>trying to outdo each other to attract customers (who are young) to their
>site.

You're probably right, but when the snazz deters from the usability of a
site, a big problem occurs. Especially with a site such as ebay. It just
drives away potential customers.

>
>And if your site isn't snazzy enough, it gets ignored or bypassed (by the
>newage crowd, which is the one who is buying stuff, afterall).
>

It's a two faced coin. Us older guys also buy from ebay and other online
stores. So, while the snazz might attract the young, it loses those of
us with older systems, and people who dont want to waste 5 hours
shopping online, because the webpages load so slow., when we can go to a
store, and even if the item costs a buck more, you get it NOW and dont
have to waste 5 hours. Even if it involves the cost of gasoline, I can
shop in a store in far less time that 5 hours, unless the store is very
far away. That's why I dont shop online for common items. I only buy
things I cant get in a nearby store, or parts for something obsolete
such as my tractor.

I know some time ago, I spent a few hours on ebay trying to find a deal
on flash drives. Some were cheap, but the shipping was outrageous, and
so on. Hours later, I got in my car and drove to Walmart and bought them
for nearly the sane prices I saw online.

Mayayana

unread,
Apr 15, 2015, 10:38:22 PM4/15/15
to
| Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
| anyone know where a person can download the free version?
|

I remember PSP4 being free when I bought a modem.
I bought PSP5 and still use it. I also bought PSP8. It
was a mess. I never used it. Awhile back I bought
PSP16. It's bloated and slow, and stuffed with idiocy
like a file manager. But it's handy to have for new
functionality. So now I keep both on hand. I think PSP16
was only $40. If I need to do things like picky sharpening
on a bad photo I use that. For simple work I still use
PSP5 because it's easier and more intuitive.

So... No, I don't know where to get v. 7, but if what
you have isn't sufficient you might consider v. 16, or
whatever is current. Otherwise, for free there's GIMP,
though I wouldn't recommend that. In 20 odd years
it's still not really fully baked.


Ian Jackson

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 3:26:46 AM4/16/15
to
In message <mgn791$m2t$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<maya...@invalid.nospam> writes
>| Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
>| anyone know where a person can download the free version?
>|
>
> I remember PSP4 being free when I bought a modem.
>I bought PSP5 and still use it. I also bought PSP8. It
>was a mess. I never used it. Awhile back I bought
>PSP16. It's bloated and slow, and stuffed with idiocy
>like a file manager. But it's handy to have for new
>functionality. So now I keep both on hand. I think PSP16
>was only $40. If I need to do things like picky sharpening
>on a bad photo I use that. For simple work I still use
>PSP5 because it's easier and more intuitive.
>
> So... No, I don't know where to get v. 7,

I've already indicated where you can.

> but if what
>you have isn't sufficient you might consider v. 16, or
>whatever is current. Otherwise, for free there's GIMP,
>though I wouldn't recommend that. In 20 odd years
>it's still not really fully baked.

Faststone Viewer has almost all the features that a home user is likely
to need - and it's a hell of a lot easier to use than GIMP (which, as
they say, has a steep learning curve). Although I've got Photoshop and
several other imaging programs, I rarely use them these days.

However, PSP7 is the only one I've got that allows you to correct things

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 6:37:52 AM4/16/15
to
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:38:08 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>I've got PSP7 (freebie with a magazine). It seems to be portable, ie
>doesn't need installation.
>
>The folder size is 42MB, and zips down to 25MB. When attached to an
>email, the encoded size is 34MB - which is probably too large. However,
>the folder contents could be split, and emailed individually as a series
>of zipped folders. For example, two folders are 12MB each (before being
>attached), so should be emailable. [If not, three or more folders?] When
>received, unzip, and combine.
>--
>Ian

This sounds great but I'm going to have to check on the size limitations
for gmail. THat is the only email I have. Since my dialup went free
(with the phone service), they eliminated email and tech support. I'll
be away this weekend, but then I'll try to find out the limits on gmail.
And I can always open another free email too.

Thanks

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 6:41:30 AM4/16/15
to
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:26:34 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Faststone Viewer has almost all the features that a home user is likely
>to need - and it's a hell of a lot easier to use than GIMP (which, as
>they say, has a steep learning curve). Although I've got Photoshop and
>several other imaging programs, I rarely use them these days.
>
>However, PSP7 is the only one I've got that allows you to correct things
>like unwanted excessive perspective taper, barrel and pincushion
>distortion etc.
>>

Ive used the demo for ver 7 and like it. I dont need anything more. I
actually was satisfied with ver 3, and did not care for 5 too much. Ver
7 is nice as well as the animation program included.

Ian Jackson

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 8:58:12 AM4/16/15
to
In message <gq3via9o9enjbe3tq...@4ax.com>,
rada...@nospam.com writes
Oh, I would think that it's bound to be at least 10MB*. I believe my
mail client (Demon's 'Turnpike') can handle 30MB per email. I'll prepare
three zipped folders of less than 10MB so I can mail them. If they don't
arrive, they don't!
*As these days, lots of people seem to delight in sending emails with
several multi-megabyte straight-out-of-the-camera photos attached!
--
Ian

Mayayana

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 9:13:41 AM4/16/15
to
| > So... No, I don't know where to get v. 7,
|
| I've already indicated where you can.
|

You're going to email it to anyone who wants it?
I doubt you'll run into trouble, but you should be
aware that the license probably prohibits that.
It probably prohibits distribution. It may even
prohibit non-trial usage. Corel could probably come
after you if they want to bother.


Ian Jackson

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 10:44:38 AM4/16/15
to
In message <mgocg8$23t$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<maya...@invalid.nospam> writes
Yes - you are right. Often, these old give-away freebies (which were
essentially a form of advertising) allowed the non-commercial
distribution of the software - but this isn't the case here. I've now
read the licensing conditions, and apart from making one backup copy, no
copying or distribution is permitted. It's probably best to play safe,
and forget the whole idea.
>

--
Ian

Paul

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 12:20:06 PM4/16/15
to
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6584?hl=en

"You can send messages up to 25 megabytes (MB) in size."

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6590

"Some file types are blocked

You can't send or receive the following file types:

mumble mumble .exe ...

Gmail won't accept these file types even if they're
sent in a zipped format.
"

So, yeah, you can have some kind of attachment. It'll just have
to be *encrypted* with an obvious but non-obvious coding method.

Paul

Bill in Co

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 1:36:55 PM4/16/15
to
Or maybe he could simply rename the exe files suffixes to something else,
then zip the collection, and then when you unzip them, rename them back (to
allow the exe files to be sent incognito)


rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 5:06:07 PM4/16/15
to
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:20:02 -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:

>> (with the phone service), they eliminated email and tech support. I'll
>> be away this weekend, but then I'll try to find out the limits on gmail.
>> And I can always open another free email too.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
>https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6584?hl=en
>
> "You can send messages up to 25 megabytes (MB) in size."
>
>https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6590
>
> "Some file types are blocked
>
> You can't send or receive the following file types:
>
> mumble mumble .exe ...
>
> Gmail won't accept these file types even if they're
> sent in a zipped format.
> "
>
>So, yeah, you can have some kind of attachment. It'll just have
>to be *encrypted* with an obvious but non-obvious coding method.
>
> Paul

Some years ago, I recall trying to email something to a friend, via
gmail, and it would not send. It was either a MP3 music file or an .EXE.
I renamed it to .JPG and it worked fine. I just told the person to
rename it and it worked fine. Wish I could remember more... I kind of
think I did ZIP it too, just to save on size.


Message has been deleted

rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2015, 9:14:53 PM4/16/15
to
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:04:56 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>>
>>Some years ago, I recall trying to email something to a friend, via
>>gmail, and it would not send. It was either a MP3 music file or an .EXE.
>>I renamed it to .JPG and it worked fine. I just told the person to
>>rename it and it worked fine. Wish I could remember more... I kind of
>>think I did ZIP it too, just to save on size.
>>
>
>I suppose if nothing else will work, I can just put it up on my web
>site for a few days.

That would work and I could go to the local WIFI rather than spent half
a day DLing it. I will be gone till Monday after tomorrow afternoon
though.

Message has been deleted

ceg

unread,
Apr 17, 2015, 3:01:32 AM4/17/15
to

Ant

unread,
Apr 17, 2015, 11:35:29 AM4/17/15
to
On 4/17/2015 12:01 AM, ceg wrote:
> http://www.oldversion.com/windows/paint-shop-pro/

Can old trialware versions still be activated to full versions?
--
"Ants follow fat." --unknown

Bill in Co

unread,
Apr 17, 2015, 2:09:54 PM4/17/15
to
Ant wrote:
> On 4/17/2015 12:01 AM, ceg wrote:
>> http://www.oldversion.com/windows/paint-shop-pro/
>
> Can old trialware versions still be activated to full versions?

None that I'm aware of, although there may be some exceptions. And the
thing is, on the few occasions I've tried to register an old trial version
with the appropriate company, they won't allow it (presumably because of the
added support costs for older versions).


J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Apr 18, 2015, 9:40:05 AM4/18/15
to
In message <8g80japuvo25ip5od...@4ax.com>,
rada...@nospam.com writes:
[]
>Some years ago, I recall trying to email something to a friend, via
>gmail, and it would not send. It was either a MP3 music file or an .EXE.
>I renamed it to .JPG and it worked fine. I just told the person to
>rename it and it worked fine. Wish I could remember more... I kind of
>think I did ZIP it too, just to save on size.
>
>
JPEGs and MP3s wouldn't have compressed much - they're already pretty
efficiently compressed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are
right. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Apr 18, 2015, 10:02:14 AM4/18/15
to
In message <XnsA47DB8BD...@wheedledeedle.moc>, Nil
<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> writes:
>On 15 Apr 2015, rada...@nospam.com wrote in
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> If a program with LESS achives the intended goal, such as
>> modifying a picture, then it's done it's job. If it's got so much
>> MORE that the user cant understand it, and thus can not get any
>> use out of it, it's worthless!
>
>Your ignorance of how to use a software is not an indication of that
>software's worth.

Though if it becomes the case that significant effort is required to do
simple tasks, then that is also not good; the user is likely to use
something simpler, and there's always the danger that s/he may find the
something simpler can do what s/he wanted, and thus abandon the complex.
[]
>> I've shopped Ebay for years, and lately their site has gone
>> overboard with crap. I thought it was just my old browser and OS,
>> but I proved that wrong the other day, while at a high speed WIFI,
>> using XP and one of the later browsers. It ran so damn slow it was
>> ridiculous.
>
>I look at Ebay almost every day. It doesn't seem slow to me, and my
>system is not at all high-powered.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd agree with radarlove about "their site". Some of
the _sellers_ on it do go over the top, though, putting their entire
storefront (or a significant part of it) in among the details of a
particular item. (I can only assume it was due to pressure from such
vendors that made ebay make it more difficult to select the option that
shows the vendor's name in the search result listings - because people
were avoiding looking at offerings from those vendors.)
[]
>> All I want to see are some pictures, a detailed description, and
>> the price and other details to buy it. I dont need flash movies,
>> things that jump around on my screen, or cover part of the page
>> (MOST ANNOYING),
>
>I don't recall seeing things jumping around my Ebay screen. Where do
>you see that?

Again, I think he's talking about some vendor's item pages, rather than
the ebay site as a whole.
>
>> and I really wish I could get rid of that damn
>> left side of the screen where they show "items you looked at". So
>> what if I looked at it. If I was interested, I'd still have the
>> page open on a tab. If I closed it, I'm not interested.
>
>I don't see any "items you looked at". In the My Ebay page I see a

I do.

>"Summary" column with categories like "Buy", Purchase History",
>"Searches you follow", etc. Each category can be collapsed so you don't
>see the sub-headings. Why is that a problem?

The "things you looked at" can't.
>
>I have a feeling you would complain no matter what.

Yup (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

To me as an anaesthetist, a doctor whose job it is to keep the engine running
while someone else tries to fix it - Dr Kevin Fong, Radio Times 25 Sept-1 Oct
2010

Nil

unread,
Apr 18, 2015, 7:12:45 PM4/18/15
to
On 18 Apr 2015, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Though if it becomes the case that significant effort is required
> to do simple tasks, then that is also not good; the user is likely
> to use something simpler, and there's always the danger that s/he
> may find the something simpler can do what s/he wanted, and thus
> abandon the complex. []

Which is as it should be. Complex tools are for complex tasks performed
by people who know how to use those tools. Simple tools are for simple
tasks. This is always what it was. It was never a secret. This guy
whining that Photoshop is too difficult is ridiculous. Why did he spend
many hundreds of dollars on an expensive professional tool while having
no intention of learning how to use it?

As for Paint Shop Pro, having used it since its very early versions, I
can safely say that simple tasks are just as easy to accomplish with
ver. 9 as with, say, ver. 5. The difference is that 9 has some added
useful features, but you can do anything you always could in pretty
much the same way as before. Complaining about that is like complaining
that a set of socket wrenches has more sizes than you need to tighten
one particular bolt.

> Again, I think he's talking about some vendor's item pages, rather
> than the ebay site as a whole.

I don't think he understands the difference. As you say, it's not Ebay,
per se, but the sellers. Another case of misdirected outrage.

Ken Blake, MVP

unread,
Apr 18, 2015, 7:29:46 PM4/18/15
to
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:12:42 -0400, Nil
<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

> The difference is that 9 has some added
> useful features, but you can do anything you always could in pretty
> much the same way as before. Complaining about that is like complaining
> that a set of socket wrenches has more sizes than you need to tighten
> one particular bolt.


Well put!

Mayayana

unread,
Apr 18, 2015, 10:45:05 PM4/18/15
to

| > Though if it becomes the case that significant effort is required
| > to do simple tasks, then that is also not good; the user is likely
| > to use something simpler, and there's always the danger that s/he
| > may find the something simpler can do what s/he wanted, and thus
| > abandon the complex. []
|
| Which is as it should be. Complex tools are for complex tasks performed
| by people who know how to use those tools.


Interesting reasoning. Thus we have perhaps the
most sophisticated and functional tool ever invented.
Rube Goldberg's pencil sharpener:

http://users_v2.section101.com/memberdata/ru/rubegoldberg/photos/rubegoldberg_photo_gal_4156_photo_909168941_lr.jpg

He probably would have admired Adobe, the company
that manages to turn a simple PDF reader into something
like a 120 MB beast.


rada...@nospam.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2015, 4:40:57 PM4/20/15
to
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:48:27 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>Try http://gfretwell.com/private/psp7.exe

Thank You! It works great!
Appreciated.....

Message has been deleted

audre...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 5, 2015, 1:27:01 AM8/5/15
to
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:21:49 AM UTC-4, Ant wrote:
> >> Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold
> >> it to Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold
> >> out. Does anyone know where a person can download the free
> >> version?
> >
> > I've been using Paint Shop Pro since about ver. 3, and I kept up with
> > it until ver. 9, which I still use. I don't remember it ever being
> > given away for free. I highly doubt that ever happened.
>
> Ditto.
> --
> "Now I have you where I want you... where is my jar of Bull ants?" --unknown
> /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
> / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
> | |o o| |
> \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
> ( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
> Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

PSP9wasthelastversionbyJascnot7.

audre...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 5, 2015, 1:29:32 AM8/5/15
to
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 4:54:10 PM UTC-4, rada...@nospam.com wrote:
> Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold it to
> Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
> anyone know where a person can download the free version?
>
> I went to some of the old app websites (oldapps.com) etc., and all i am
> finding is the 30 day demo.
>
> I'm sure that Corel would not only be costly, but would not sell the
> older versions. Just wondering if anyone knows where to download the
> free version. (which is probably 12 or more years old).
>
> Thanks

PaintShopPro9wasthelastversionbyJasc...not7.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Aug 5, 2015, 5:21:30 PM8/5/15
to
In message <b480a3ad-1cb3-4321...@googlegroups.com>,
audre...@gmail.com writes:
>On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 4:54:10 PM UTC-4, rada...@nospam.com wrote:
>> Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold it to
>> Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
>> anyone know where a person can download the free version?

IIRR (I _think_ it was Corel), they didn't exactly give it away free:
they had some sort of upgrade facility that they wanted to turn the
server off for, so for the last few days (?) during which the upgrade
facility was still valid, they put up a download on a free-access
server, and revealed a password. You weren't _supposed_ to download from
that server unless you already had (bought) whatever it was that
entitled you to the upgrade.

Of course, only such entitled people downloaded it ... (-:

Actually, it was a suite of about three prog.s. I _think_ it was Corel,
but it might have been something completely different that I'm
remembering.
[]
>PaintShopPro9wasthelastversionbyJasc...not7.

Isyourspacebarbroken?(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All's well that ends.

Paul

unread,
Aug 5, 2015, 7:47:34 PM8/5/15
to
I think that was the Great Adobe "Giveaway". It wasn't intended
as a Giveaway, but perhaps there just wasn't a good way for
them to handle the situation. I don't know if some "force of
nature" out there, forced their hand, or what the story was.

They shut down a keyserver of some sort, and
put activated copies of their products on their
download server. The code in question, is probably ten+
years old. It would include a perfectly good
copy of Photoshop. As well as Premiere. The products
would likely have been suited to a WinXP-era OS.

I expect you could still get that.

http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html

I never ended up using those, but I do have a copy stored
on disk here. Using my tagging system, it's stored as:

PhSp_CS2_English__photoshop_CS2_1045-1412-5685-1654-6343-1431.exe

356,583,291 bytes

SHA1SUM = 1edfd80947f4a89a0d80c94ab7caf3c2be7224c5

In my tagging system, everything after the two-character-underline,
is added comment text by me.

Since I use GIMP, and my current needs are modest, I
don't need it. I do have a paid version of Photoshop
on the machine with the scanner, and I can use the
macro recorder to carry out a series of operations
on scans. I haven't spotted such a capability on
GIMP. But for simple image operations, such as preparing
screen-shots for upload to Tinypic, GIMP is good enough
for that.

Paul

Bill in Co

unread,
Aug 5, 2015, 10:09:04 PM8/5/15
to
And Audition, too. Although that version of Audition is a bit of an
albatross, like Photoshop (and seemingly most Adobe products).

Paint Shop Pro (older version from Jasc) does well for me, and is more than
I need. However, for automatic touchups or spot/blemish removers, there are
some nice dedicated plug-ins or apps out there, which, at least to me, are a
lot simpler than just using the tools built into a basic photo editor.


ahmed malik

unread,
Jan 13, 2021, 1:07:13 PM1/13/21
to
tisdag 14 april 2015 kl. 22:54:10 UTC+2 skrev rada...@nospam.com:
> Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold it to
> Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
> anyone know where a person can download the free version?
>

Mayayana

unread,
Jan 13, 2021, 4:19:57 PM1/13/21
to
"ahmed malik" <amdidg...@gmail.com> wrote

| > Paint Shop Pro 7 was the last version from JASC, before they sold it to
| > Corel. Supposedly JASC gave it away FREE before they sold out. Does
| > anyone know where a person can download the free version?
| >
| > I went to some of the old app websites (oldapps.com) etc., and all i am
| > finding is the 30 day demo.

Check here: http://www.oldversion.com/windows/paint-shop-pro/

I don't know about 7 but v. 5 is what I usually use. I bought it
for $100 back in the late 90s. V. 5.01 at that link looks like the
right size. I also have 8, but found it bloated and hard to use.
And I have PSP16, but that's very bloated. I mostly only use it
for things like picky editing of RAW photos. For most things I
still prefer PSP5. It's got almost all the tools with none of the
bullshit.



Brad Renford

unread,
Aug 9, 2022, 11:07:50 AMAug 9
to
DO NOT GO THE THE WEB SITE SHOWN ABOVE, IT IS A SCAM, IT TAKES YOU TO A GAME SITE WITH NO CONNECTION TO pAINT PRO

gfre...@aol.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2022, 1:34:40 PMAug 9
to
I have one of the free versions of 7.02 and I could put it up on my
web site if anyone wants it.

JJ

unread,
Aug 9, 2022, 9:49:57 PMAug 9
to
That's what one get for being greedy and tries to download the latest
version. Greedy ones are always the easy victims.

Mayayana

unread,
Aug 10, 2022, 8:13:41 AMAug 10
to
"JJ" <jj4p...@outlook.com> wrote

http://www.oldversion.com/windows/paint-shop-pro/

| > DO NOT GO THE THE WEB SITE SHOWN ABOVE, IT IS A SCAM, IT TAKES YOU TO A
GAME SITE WITH NO CONNECTION TO pAINT PRO
|
| That's what one get for being greedy and tries to download the latest
| version. Greedy ones are always the easy victims.

That link used to be fine. Several of the old version sites
are legit. Though I had trouble with all of them recently. The
downloads were not working. I don't know why.

I just tried downloading PSP5.01 from
the link above and unpacked it with Universal Extractor.
Everything looks legit, tthough I didn't actually try running it.
I didn't try 7. I think that was the second version I bought
and it was a mess. Confusing junk likeGIF options on the
toolbar menu. Try to draw a rectangle and I had to chose between
numerous shapes... Lots of things that little kids might like,
but that are not part of a graphic editor.


Mayayana

unread,
Aug 10, 2022, 8:17:14 AMAug 10
to
And who the heck is Brad Renford, for that matter?
Responding to a 1 1/2 year old post, from Google
Groups, with a false, paranoid warning. It looks to me
like someone who resents freeware. Maybe an Adobe
shill or some such. Though probably just a loner. I can't
imagine it's worth the trouble for the likes of Adobe
to market paranoia to a small band of old men. :)



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages