The Mooching Upgrade Policy…!!!

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your
baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that
is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry
features like these:

Well apparently you are unaware that there are many Photoshop users who also do movie work. I do my digital movie editing using Adobe Premiere software and integrate still images from Photoshop into movie scenes. Anyone who has not seen that still picture/movies into a film is really missing out on the possibilities. The fact that Adobe is integrating its many products for artists,
photographers,cinematographers and other graphics users. Think of the possibilities!

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want
us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

On Aug 28, 7:13 pm, "Frank Arthur" wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your
baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that
is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry
features like these:

Well apparently you are unaware that there are many Photoshop users who also do movie work. I do my digital movie editing using Adobe Premiere software and integrate still images from Photoshop into movie scenes. Anyone who has not seen that still picture/movies into a film is really missing out on the possibilities. The fact that Adobe is integrating its many products for artists,
photographers,cinematographers and other graphics users. Think of the possibilities!

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want
us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

Oh great. You must be the lucky man who at last found the goose with golden eggs! I wonder how much you know about Photoshop? And you are a pro who uses Premiere for great serious professional editing?
o….oh…ok… I will buy that.. But I wont pay much!!!

For your HUMBLE knowledge, most of the Photoshop users are not really cinematographers nor film editors (like you are, Frank). You didn’t get the point. The point is that if you are a beggar and got your a** uncovered by your own pants, don’t wear a toxido coat "ONLY" in front of people! So, please tell who send you to post here that you are not in a good position trying to market possibilities of movies editing, while we didn’t perfect the stills yet!

This post (if you noticed) is about patching Adobe Photoshop (that was originally made for the stills). So please read well before you answer.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

PS: It’s NOT polite to change the main subject line in Photoshop ng’s posts made by LOYAL members.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry features like these:

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

I known of two major hollywood visual effects houses that use PhotoShop (friends who work for them) as part of their daily workflow, and always have. I think you are about 5 years late…

Also, lots of anime producers also us PS for matt work & other backgrounds… and have done for years.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

Frank Arthur wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your
baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that
is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry
features like these:

Well apparently you are unaware that there are many Photoshop users who also do movie work. I do my digital movie editing using Adobe Premiere software and integrate still images from Photoshop into movie scenes. Anyone who has not seen that still picture/movies into a film is really missing out on the possibilities. The fact that Adobe is integrating its many products for artists,
photographers,cinematographers and other graphics users. Think of the possibilities!

As far as I know, PhotoShop is reguarly used in modern movie production – it’s compositing is ideal for backgrounds, creating textures for CGI and so on… basically anything that requires composite images!

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

On Aug 28, 10:28 pm, SpaceGirl
wrote:

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry features like these:

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

I known of two major hollywood visual effects houses that use PhotoShop (friends who work for them) as part of their daily workflow, and always have. I think you are about 5 years late…

Also, lots of anime producers also us PS for matt work & other backgrounds… and have done for years.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home:http://www.bitesizedjapan.com- Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –

I agree for what you say. Did I deny that Photoshop is used for stills? For example if you are background artist working with CGI group, then you use PS and hand over your stills to someone else who uses animation software that are way beyond the possibilities provided by this humble editing feature. It’s just like selling shoes in magazines box. I don’t say it is not cool either. First thing first.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

As far as I know, PhotoShop is reguarly used in modern movie production – it’s compositing is ideal for backgrounds, creating textures for CGI and so on… basically anything that requires composite images!

Again you are referring to the stills.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

As far as I know, PhotoShop is reguarly used in modern movie production – it’s compositing is ideal for backgrounds, creating textures for CGI and so on… basically anything that requires composite images!

Again you are referring to the stills.

What use are the skills without the tool?
The two are inter-connected.

On Aug 28, 11:05 pm, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

As far as I know, PhotoShop is reguarly used in modern movie production – it’s compositing is ideal for backgrounds, creating textures for CGI and so on… basically anything that requires composite images!

Again you are referring to the stills.

What use are the skills without the tool?
The two are inter-connected.

STILLS (still images) not SKILLS…. You made me smile in this long day. 🙂

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

On Aug 28, 11:05 pm, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

As far as I know, PhotoShop is reguarly used in modern movie production – it’s compositing is ideal for backgrounds, creating textures for CGI and so on… basically anything that requires composite images!

Again you are referring to the stills.

What use are the skills without the tool?
The two are inter-connected.

STILLS (still images) not SKILLS…. You made me smile in this long day. 🙂

Hahaha.
I genuinely thought you had types skills.
Maybe I need to go and lie down for a while, LOL.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

On Aug 28, 10:28 pm, SpaceGirl
wrote:

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?
Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry features like these:
http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/
I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009. Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

I known of two major hollywood visual effects houses that use PhotoShop (friends who work for them) as part of their daily workflow, and always have. I think you are about 5 years late…

Also, lots of anime producers also us PS for matt work & other backgrounds… and have done for years.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home:http://www.bitesizedjapan.com- Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –

I agree for what you say. Did I deny that Photoshop is used for stills? For example if you are background artist working with CGI group, then you use PS and hand over your stills to someone else who uses animation software that are way beyond the possibilities provided by this humble editing feature. It’s just like selling shoes in magazines box. I don’t say it is not cool either. First thing first.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

PhotoShop does lack some features I’d like to see – but at the same time I never use PhotoShop alone. I always use it with Illustrator. For animation I use Flash and/or AfterEffects (if the animation is to be used in video). I don’t think one application should do everything; if that happened there would be bound to be some weak features, when a specialized program would be more complete. For example, the 3D features in PhotoShop could be expanded, but I’d rather see them expanded in Illustrator first – it’s more suitable as most 3D work starts of as vector graphics… in 3D! I would however like to see more natural media tools (Like Corel Painter) and paint on colorization (again, like Painter) and paper "styles". I like the warping tool you designed, I think that would be good in PhotoShop & Illustrator, or even added to video in AfterEffects or Premier Pro. I’d like to see some of Flash’s very simple drawing tools added to Illustrator… sometimes rough tools are VERY useful, whereas Illustrator is sometimes too much about precision. It doesn’t lend itself to artistic flare so much.

To be honest I have a very long list of things I’d add to each product, as I use PhotoShop, Illustrator and Flash every single day (even weekends), as well as FinalCut Express / Premier Pro / AfterEffects a couple of times a week. I guess we all have our own lists!

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

On Aug 28, 7:13 pm, "Frank Arthur" wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
message

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your
baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in
movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that
is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry
features like these:

Well apparently you are unaware that there are many Photoshop users who also do movie work. I do my digital movie editing using Adobe Premiere software and integrate still images from Photoshop into movie
scenes. Anyone who has not seen that still picture/movies into a film
is really missing out on the possibilities. The fact that Adobe is integrating its many products for artists,
photographers,cinematographers and other graphics users. Think of the
possibilities!

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know
that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to
cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want
us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

Oh great. You must be the lucky man who at last found the goose with golden eggs! I wonder how much you know about Photoshop? And you are a
pro who uses Premiere for great serious professional editing?
o….oh…ok… I will buy that.. But I wont pay much!!!

I am not a professional. I am a serious hobbyist who enjoy my work, have won a number of awards for my photography. My work grace the walls and give joy to family and friends. I distribute my home videos onto CD’s and those few people who receive them really enjoy them. I guess the combination is joy and creativity.
I’m only into Photoshop since version 3.1 and have used up more boxes of Inkjet Paper than your IQ. About 70 boxes.

You are an ignorant wise ass fuckhead and you are not worth replying to. If you don’t change the attitude that the chip your shoulder rests on you will not only not learn- and you really need help. Lest you get flushed down the internet drain!

For your HUMBLE knowledge, most of the Photoshop users are not really
cinematographers nor film editors (like you are, Frank). You didn’t get the point. The point is that if you are a beggar and got your a**
uncovered by your own pants, don’t wear a toxido coat "ONLY" in front
of people! So, please tell who send you to post here that you are not
in a good position trying to market possibilities of movies editing, while we didn’t perfect the stills yet!

This post (if you noticed) is about patching Adobe Photoshop (that was
originally made for the stills). So please read well before you answer.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

PS: It’s NOT polite to change the main subject line in Photoshop ng’s
posts made by LOYAL members.

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry features like these:

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

I answered the original (not angry) post

I said:
If they don’t add your features you should make an enhancement plug-in and sell it
I saw a few interesting ideas on your mock up

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrotE

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product?

So people who use combination digicams/still cams can mess with video. That’s the trend, Mohamed. Others with more serious digital-video aspirations will look at it and move on to the true motion applications.

I’m wondering what you really want. I know from your history of posts that you want a natural language (NL) action/droplet facility. Is that it?

I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user
interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

Miranda,

You are right! The UI is excellent. I wholy depend on Photoshop.

It turned out to be really beneficial that others try to show the weak points in Photoshop. My first criticism wish list was published in 2002. Here is a link to that old post:

http://dabbagh.fortunecity.com/photoshop/

Do you know that there are two employees in Adobe Photoshop who follow up these ideas and act silently on adopting them (of course without any credit). If you go through that list you will find that most of it has been realized. It is a personal interesting experience! However, this time I provided graphical manifestation of my verbal ideas. If you worked in serious prepress work, you will find that all ideas contained in:

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

Are meant to fill a vacancy in what Photoshop lacks as BASIC requirements. What you see is not decorative or cosmetic or luxurious requests. For example, spot channels will require a huge effort as it will lead to changing the main structure of the Photoshop’s legacy source code. I can call CS3 a major upgrade, but not in the right direction. Next major upgrade will be in 2009 and you will see a surprise there. I will announce details for that major upgrade in the near future. I think you know the story when I announced CS3 new features one year before it’s release.

Thanx for your time.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

On Aug 29, 12:37 am, "Frank Arthur" wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

On Aug 28, 7:13 pm, "Frank Arthur" wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
message

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your
baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in
movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that
is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry
features like these:

Well apparently you are unaware that there are many Photoshop users who also do movie work. I do my digital movie editing using Adobe Premiere software and integrate still images from Photoshop into movie
scenes. Anyone who has not seen that still picture/movies into a film
is really missing out on the possibilities. The fact that Adobe is integrating its many products for artists,
photographers,cinematographers and other graphics users. Think of the
possibilities!

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know
that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to
cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want
us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

Oh great. You must be the lucky man who at last found the goose with golden eggs! I wonder how much you know about Photoshop? And you are a
pro who uses Premiere for great serious professional editing?
o….oh…ok… I will buy that.. But I wont pay much!!!

I am not a professional. I am a serious hobbyist who enjoy my work, have won a number of awards for my photography. My work grace the walls and give joy to family and friends. I distribute my home videos onto CD’s and those few people who receive them really enjoy them. I guess the combination is joy and creativity.
I’m only into Photoshop since version 3.1 and have used up more boxes of Inkjet Paper than your IQ. About 70 boxes.

You are an ignorant wise ass fuckhead and you are not worth replying to. If you don’t change the attitude that the chip your shoulder rests on you will not only not learn- and you really need help. Lest you get flushed down the internet drain!

For your HUMBLE knowledge, most of the Photoshop users are not really
cinematographers nor film editors (like you are, Frank). You didn’t get the point. The point is that if you are a beggar and got your a**
uncovered by your own pants, don’t wear a toxido coat "ONLY" in front
of people! So, please tell who send you to post here that you are not
in a good position trying to market possibilities of movies editing, while we didn’t perfect the stills yet!

This post (if you noticed) is about patching Adobe Photoshop (that was
originally made for the stills). So please read well before you answer.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

PS: It’s NOT polite to change the main subject line in Photoshop ng’s
posts made by LOYAL members.- Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text — Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

Take it easy.. it is not polite to say that kiddo.

On Aug 29, 5:02 am, jjs wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrotE

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product?

So people who use combination digicams/still cams can mess with video. That’s the trend, Mohamed. Others with more serious digital-video aspirations will look at it and move on to the true motion applications.
I’m wondering what you really want. I know from your history of posts that you want a natural language (NL) action/droplet facility. Is that it?

All what I want that basic things should be first fixed then we move to add more advanced features. Natural language for actions, I don’t think I demanded such a thing before, though it is not a bad idea! Take a look again here:

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

This is what I want, as a partial subset of demands for previous lists.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

In article ,
says…

OMG, don’t you believe that it is absolutely outrageous to bring your baby a 2-headed Chucky doll in the Christmas?

Do you believe, guys, that Photoshop is trying to find it’s way in movies world?!!!!!!! Is that what Photoshop was designed for or that is a way of selling some pickled product? I wonder what the hell movies editing do in this crowd, while Photoshop lacks some elementry features like these:

http://dabbagh2.fortunecity.com/pscsx/

I posted this link before, but it seems that many users don’t know that Photoshop people are mooching off us with this version (CS3) to cover for other serious features that Photoshop lacks? They still want us to wait for the new major upgrade that will happen in 2009.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

Maybe it’s because I am from Mississippi, and English is my "second language," but I cannot figure out what your rant is about.

As far as an image editing program for AV editing, I use PS w/ Premiere and Encore daily. I am very glad that Adobe has woven these products so closely together. Almost every other day, someone questions how to make other image editors function like PS with the NLE & authoring programs from Adobe. Matter of fact, I ended up with 2 licenses for PS, when I purchased Adobe Production Studio Premium. I already had PS from ver. 2.5, so I now have it on my workstation, my laptop (under same license) and on my secondary workstation (new license). Did I bitch about paying US$1500 for Production Studio Premium, even though I already owned PS, AI, InDesign, PageMaker, Acrobat Pro, GoLive, Steamline, TypeAlign, etc.? No. I needed the NLE and took PS and AI with the package. Soon, I’ll do the same for CS3 for Premiere and all the others, but I feel that Premiere & Encore CS3 are not yet ready for "prime time."

I could rant that Adobe spent a lot of time porting Premiere for MAC, and not enough time working on major upgrades for the PC, but I don’t. In the end, we’ll all get great products.

Hunt

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

I use Painter, also, and still have a pre-Corel version (5?), because I liked that interface better than 8 & 9, but still get my upgrades to that program.

Hunt

On 15 Sep 2007 03:54:17 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.

That’s my wish list in full.

use PhotoshopCS.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

I use Painter, also, and still have a pre-Corel version (5?), because I liked that interface better than 8 & 9, but still get my upgrades to that program.
Hunt

"Tom" wrote in message

On 15 Sep 2007 03:54:17 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.
That’s my wish list in full.

use PhotoshopCS.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what
features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they
have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and
some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

I use Painter, also, and still have a pre-Corel version (5?), because I liked
that interface better than 8 & 9, but still get my upgrades to that program.

Hunt

Adobe says the reason ACR is not backwards compatible is that the older versions of Photoshop do not have the code needed to use the additions they make to ACR with each major release. If you look at the features that are added when they add new camera support it is pretty minor. Major features only come when they do a new version of Photoshop and that is because they can then add the code needed to make it all work. Code that older versions of Photoshop don’t have.

Personally, I think some of it is true but I don’t know what that has to do with them adding new camera support to the older versions of ACR. Not new features just updated camera support. Shouldn’t be a problem.

Somebody!

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people. You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

Adobe is a blessing. I can only speak as an author who writes about lots of different applications — and even the people who’s software you’re writing about can treat you like a bonehead. I gotta defend Adobe to the end.

I guarantee they’re watching and noting feedback on every usenet group even mentioning Adobe in content. This one and all the Suite ones for sure.

So keep on making suggestions that help make the software work better, and you could very well see it appear.

Gary in tampa

On 9/15/07 6:02 AM, in article ,
"Tom" wrote:

On 15 Sep 2007 03:54:17 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.
That’s my wish list in full.

use PhotoshopCS.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

I use Painter, also, and still have a pre-Corel version (5?), because I liked that interface better than 8 & 9, but still get my upgrades to that program.
Hunt

Hunt wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

Oh, such as the Kinko print icon in Acrobat Pro?

<cynic mode>

Adobe are commercial application builders, they do what they think is commercially best, not what we’d like them to add. It’s not commercially viable for them to add most of the features we want in one go… they will continue to dribble features each release cycle to keep up upgrading every 18 months. It’s nice to think they are all cuddly and warm and really do care for us poor users, but in reality that’s a load of marketing rubbish.

We’ll only see real innovation if a powerful commercial competitor releases a product that seriously challenges the dominance of any of their products. I can’t see that happening any time soon.

</cynic mode>

Maybe they really do care, I don’t know. Did the new UI come from user input? None of the features I’ve begged for over the years (except, nested layers! layer groups!) have made it into PS… I have a wish-list as long as… um… something very long.

I’m also a happy upgrader 🙂 There were enough new features in CS3 to warrant me upgrading my copies this year, and I don’t regret that at all. I think it’s an amazing product. But it could be a lot better. Some of it feels terribly lazy,.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people. You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

Adobe is a blessing. I can only speak as an author who writes about lots of different applications — and even the people who’s software you’re writing about can treat you like a bonehead. I gotta defend Adobe to the end.
I guarantee they’re watching and noting feedback on every usenet group even mentioning Adobe in content. This one and all the Suite ones for sure.
So keep on making suggestions that help make the software work better, and you could very well see it appear.

Gary in tampa

Gary, they’re a commercial software company 🙂 Remember that. They don’t write PhotoShop out of the goodness of their hearts 😀

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

In article ,
says…

On 15 Sep 2007 03:54:17 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.
That’s my wish list in full.

[SNIP]

You must consider the order of development. Your ver of PS and ACR handled the Canon RAW files of that era. Canon improved/changed their RAW files, and Adobe issued CS2 & now, CS3. Had Canon not made their changes, you’d be fine. They felt it was worth the effort to do so, and you bought into the imporvements in hardware, software and all of the aspects that go with that. Here, I’d not see Adobe’s responsibility to look at accommodating the new Canons (let’s also list Nikons, Leicas, etc.) for software that has now been replaced by two full versions.

I would anticipate, but do not know for a fact, that your Canon software will yield a TIFF, that PS-CS can handle. Yes, it’s nice to have the ability to work in the camera’s RAW in PS, but I’d not expect Adobe to develop for software that has been phased out, what six years?

I hated to give up some of my old 3-D paint programs, but having a machine with WinME and only 512MB RAM just cost me too much desktop space. I needed that machine to step up and earn its keep, so these legacy programs finally got sent to the dustheap. That is a price that we all pay for progress.

Hunt

In article ,
says…

Hunt wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

[More SNIPPAGE]

Maybe they really do care, I don’t know. Did the new UI come from user input? None of the features I’ve begged for over the years (except, nested layers! layer groups!) have made it into PS… I have a wish-list as long as… um… something very long.

I’m also a happy upgrader 🙂 There were enough new features in CS3 to warrant me upgrading my copies this year, and I don’t regret that at all. I think it’s an amazing product. But it could be a lot better. Some of it feels terribly lazy,.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

Yes, Adobe is a commercial operation. What is wrong with that? Where do you think that the $s, or

How about you put up your ten most-wanted new features, and see which– if any — make it into CS4?

I have great friends at Adobe that have ignored me before? Who knows? Maybe they’ll ignore you, too 🙂

Really, though, spacegirl — put a list here.

You guys (in a non-sexual way, spacie one) know that Adobe keeps a usenet group named featurerequests that has never — in the two years I’ve watched it — been used?

On 9/15/07 6:48 PM, in article ,
"SpaceGirl" wrote:

Hunt wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

Oh, such as the Kinko print icon in Acrobat Pro?

<cynic mode>

Adobe are commercial application builders, they do what they think is commercially best, not what we’d like them to add. It’s not commercially viable for them to add most of the features we want in one go… they will continue to dribble features each release cycle to keep up upgrading every 18 months. It’s nice to think they are all cuddly and warm and really do care for us poor users, but in reality that’s a load of marketing rubbish.

We’ll only see real innovation if a powerful commercial competitor releases a product that seriously challenges the dominance of any of their products. I can’t see that happening any time soon.
</cynic mode>

Maybe they really do care, I don’t know. Did the new UI come from user input? None of the features I’ve begged for over the years (except, nested layers! layer groups!) have made it into PS… I have a wish-list as long as… um… something very long.

I’m also a happy upgrader 🙂 There were enough new features in CS3 to warrant me upgrading my copies this year, and I don’t regret that at all. I think it’s an amazing product. But it could be a lot better. Some of it feels terribly lazy,.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:36:34 -0400, Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people. You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

They don’t do PhotoshopCS or any version for that matter! Why would I want to talk to them

Adobe is a blessing. I can only speak as an author who writes about lots of different applications — and even the people who’s software you’re writing about can treat you like a bonehead. I gotta defend Adobe to the end.

I bet they just love you.

I guarantee they’re watching and noting feedback on every usenet group even mentioning Adobe in content. This one and all the Suite ones for sure. So keep on making suggestions that help make the software work better, and you could very well see it appear.

Thankyou for your contribution.

Tom.

On 9/15/07 6:02 AM, in article ,
"Tom" wrote:

On 15 Sep 2007 03:54:17 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.
That’s my wish list in full.

use PhotoshopCS.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

I use Painter, also, and still have a pre-Corel version (5?), because I liked that interface better than 8 & 9, but still get my upgrades to that program.
Hunt

On 16 Sep 2007 01:47:29 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

Hunt wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

[More SNIPPAGE]

Maybe they really do care, I don’t know. Did the new UI come from user input? None of the features I’ve begged for over the years (except, nested layers! layer groups!) have made it into PS… I have a wish-list as long as… um… something very long.

I’m also a happy upgrader 🙂 There were enough new features in CS3 to warrant me upgrading my copies this year, and I don’t regret that at all. I think it’s an amazing product. But it could be a lot better. Some of it feels terribly lazy,.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

Yes, Adobe is a commercial operation. What is wrong with that? Where do you think that the $s, or £s, or ¥ come from? Do you think they print it in the basement? If one does not get updates, and upgrades, they complain. If they get them, they accuse Adobe of making money. Heck, I do what I do for a living. I charge money for it. I do not give it away. Why should Adobe? Why should they take a loss on their products? Can they do better? Yes, I would say that they could. Are they better than most SW companines? Again, yes. With the exception of the old WordPerfect (Orem, UT days, before Novell and Corel), I’ve never dealt with a better one.

When some of my suggestions do not make the next iteration, I feel that it is because a larger user base wanted something else. Will that sell more software – let’s all hope so. If not, then Corel will buy Adobe and we’ll really have something to bitch about!

Hunt, who doesn’t feel that Adobe owes him anything, but the best product that they can create.

Thankyou for your contribution.

Tom

You’re very welcome, Tom.

And they do love me, you’re right 🙂 I wanna be loved by royalty, knowing that I’m a mere farmer making green beans on property they’ve plowed in the first place.

And I’m old as dust, and started doing testing on the kerning pairs for the first 12 Type1 Postscript fonts. So bear with me — I won’t be here any more than 12 or 15 years before moving to the ashram :-)))))

Gary in tampa

On 9/16/07 2:17 PM, in article ,
"Tom" wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:36:34 -0400, Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people. You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

They don’t do PhotoshopCS or any version for that matter! Why would I want to talk to them

Adobe is a blessing. I can only speak as an author who writes about lots of different applications — and even the people who’s software you’re writing about can treat you like a bonehead. I gotta defend Adobe to the end.

I bet they just love you.

I guarantee they’re watching and noting feedback on every usenet group even mentioning Adobe in content. This one and all the Suite ones for sure. So keep on making suggestions that help make the software work better, and you could very well see it appear.

Thankyou for your contribution.

Tom.

On 9/15/07 6:02 AM, in article ,
"Tom" wrote:

On 15 Sep 2007 03:54:17 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

In article ,
says…

[SNIP]

Adobe will never ask us though – I’ve no idea how they come up with their feature list, but it rarely seems to reflect what people are asking for. Sometimes, in a more cynical mood, I think it’s more to do with what they think will give them more market share, not what would make life better for their existing customers – or politics. They could have introduced some very powerful painting tools into Photoshop years ago, but always left that door open for CorelPainter… which I could never figure out. I MUCH prefer PhotoShops UI (I adore the CS3 user interface changes… soooo much better). So much so, I will struggle sometimes to produce effect in PhotoShop that could be done in minutes in Painter.

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.
That’s my wish list in full.

use PhotoshopCS.

I beg to differ. Right now, Adobe has several focus groups dedicated to what
features one wants in Premiere and Encore. They care. They listen. Then they
have to prioritize for the largest group. Hey, I’ve asked for dozens of features in as many Adobe products. Some end up in the next generation, and some do not. That is life. I do not expect everyone else to have the same workflow, as I.

I use Painter, also, and still have a pre-Corel version (5?), because I liked
that interface better than 8 & 9, but still get my upgrades to that program.

Hunt

On Sep 15, 11:02 am, Tom wrote:
[snip]

We all have wish lists. I just wish they would make their stuff backwards compatible, I hope that’s the right phrase. I use Canon .raw (CR2) and I also use PhotoshopCS. I don’t want to up-grade because what I have does what I want it to do and I’m comfortable with it. PhotoshopCS converter will not deal with .CR2 I have to use a third party application.

[snip]

There is the DNG route, of course. Some people use that to avoid upgrading when they have a new camera. CS handles all the cameras that CS3 does via the DNG route.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/ps_cs.htm

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people. You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

I work for Microsoft, and I can tell you that this isn’t true. We spend lots of time, money, and effort listening to customers. My group is continually improving our product in response to online feedback, customer focus research, direct correspondence, and face-to-face discussions. The spread in satisfied vs. dissatisfied numbers is one of the major drivers company-wide, and is built into the review ratings of many high-level execs.

Then what went wrong with Vista. The worst OS ever. Microsoft Bob was better. Everything takes 10 times as long and is 5 times as confussing.

Somebody!

Cynicor wrote:

Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people.
You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

I work for Microsoft, and I can tell you that this isn’t true. We spend lots of time, money, and effort listening to customers. My group is continually improving our product in response to online feedback, customer focus research, direct correspondence, and face-to-face discussions. The spread in satisfied vs. dissatisfied numbers is one of the major drivers company-wide, and is built into the review ratings of many high-level execs.

That sounds like marketing rubbish to me. As someone pointed out, what the hell happened with Vista then?

It’s fine consulting with your customers… gives them the warm fuzzy feeling that their opinion actually accounts for something. But then you can happily ignore it and do whatever it is you want to do. MS have NEVER got this right. I think Adobe are a little better than that.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:37:11 -0700, "Somebody" wrote:

Then what went wrong with Vista. The worst OS ever. Microsoft Bob was better. Everything takes 10 times as long and is 5 times as confussing.
Somebody!

Yes, I agree. Not only that, but why is Microsoft jamming Vista down our throats by not giving us the option to buy a new computer with Win XP instead of the junk you call an OS? I’m about to buy a full version of XP so that when I get my next computer, I can erase Vista and install XP. That’s ridiculous!! Why release an OS that’s not ready, doesn’t work with most older peripherals, and a lot of existing software?
Dell recognized that Vista was garbage, and stepped back and offers XP on several of their models, but that won’t last long, so I’m stuck to either buy a copy of XP now, or a new computer that I don’t need. Why can’t Microsoft get their act together and stop making more headaches for us and themselves? I would have thought that MS would have gotten tired of screwing up!
If I didn’t dislike Macs so much, I’d switch!

Talker

Talker wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:37:11 -0700, "Somebody" wrote:

Then what went wrong with Vista. The worst OS ever. Microsoft Bob was better. Everything takes 10 times as long and is 5 times as confussing.
Somebody!

Yes, I agree. Not only that, but why is Microsoft jamming Vista down our throats by not giving us the option to buy a new computer with Win XP instead of the junk you call an OS? I’m about to buy a full version of XP so that when I get my next computer, I can erase Vista and install XP. That’s ridiculous!! Why release an OS that’s not ready, doesn’t work with most older peripherals, and a lot of existing software?
Dell recognized that Vista was garbage, and stepped back and offers XP on several of their models, but that won’t last long, so I’m stuck to either buy a copy of XP now, or a new computer that I don’t need. Why can’t Microsoft get their act together and stop making more headaches for us and themselves? I would have thought that MS would have gotten tired of screwing up!
If I didn’t dislike Macs so much, I’d switch!

Talker

Well it just makes for a lot of BETA testers.

I run a Mac, which gets no viruses, while running (in a cheap, low-draw window) anything from your entire hosed operating system. Things like MS software, straight-from-the-boxes Oracle apps, Autocad, anything I want. Along with really cool software the likes of which you’ve never imagined. The Mac provides a real-time connection between the applications we run and the operating system responsible for keeping them running.

And you hate the Mac, huh? You ain’t worked on one, or you can’t afford one. Either way, that’s too bad.

I wrote the second book ever published for Adobe Press on a PC, and we write college textbooks for three platforms — so it’s not like I’m a Mac-o-phile drugged out on the little bing sound. I’m a technician that knows the differences — real time, real world — between Macs, PCs (running any OS) and Unix/Linux boxes.

I gotta disagree with you about the Macintosh. Far more stable than the other two boxes is only the beginning of the argument — but it’s enough for me, man.

gary

On 9/19/07 8:38 PM, in article 46f1c14a$, "Rob" wrote:

Talker wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:37:11 -0700, "Somebody" wrote:

Then what went wrong with Vista. The worst OS ever. Microsoft Bob was better. Everything takes 10 times as long and is 5 times as confussing.
Somebody!

Yes, I agree. Not only that, but why is Microsoft jamming Vista down our throats by not giving us the option to buy a new computer with Win XP instead of the junk you call an OS? I’m about to buy a full version of XP so that when I get my next computer, I can erase Vista and install XP. That’s ridiculous!! Why release an OS that’s not ready, doesn’t work with most older peripherals, and a lot of existing software?
Dell recognized that Vista was garbage, and stepped back and offers XP on several of their models, but that won’t last long, so I’m stuck to either buy a copy of XP now, or a new computer that I don’t need. Why can’t Microsoft get their act together and stop making more headaches for us and themselves? I would have thought that MS would have gotten tired of screwing up!
If I didn’t dislike Macs so much, I’d switch!

Talker

Well it just makes for a lot of BETA testers.

Somebody wrote:

Then what went wrong with Vista. The worst OS ever. Microsoft Bob was better. Everything takes 10 times as long and is 5 times as confussing.

I don’t know. They won’t talk to me about it.

Right on, Girl from Space 🙂

Gary in tampa, still the adobe-ite from the planet zeenon :-)))))))

And somebody trashed the Mac, here, too. Phew! It’s getting downright political 🙂

Gary again

On 9/19/07 5:01 PM, in article ,
"SpaceGirl" wrote:

Cynicor wrote:

Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people.
You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

I work for Microsoft, and I can tell you that this isn’t true. We spend lots of time, money, and effort listening to customers. My group is continually improving our product in response to online feedback, customer focus research, direct correspondence, and face-to-face discussions. The spread in satisfied vs. dissatisfied numbers is one of the major drivers company-wide, and is built into the review ratings of many high-level execs.

That sounds like marketing rubbish to me. As someone pointed out, what the hell happened with Vista then?

It’s fine consulting with your customers… gives them the warm fuzzy feeling that their opinion actually accounts for something. But then you can happily ignore it and do whatever it is you want to do. MS have NEVER got this right. I think Adobe are a little better than that.

In all respect for what you guys do, Cynicor, Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla compared to those of us at or around Adobe. We’re only third in the world for software revenues. About 1000 times smaller in human-speak.

Another factor — outside the joke-realm completely, is the fact that the recent upgrades to the Suite applications (14 in all) were done at one time, and largely done with a core-code issue in mind (the Intel chip in the Mac hardware).

The CS3 upgrade was 12 months late as a result of the platform change — but Adobe’s stuff runs on PCs and Macs, and Microsoft’s never will. You have one set of everything for the PC and one for the Mac. Adobe writes universal code. Except for now, when we can easily run MS’s new excuse for an OS at the same time we run old, boring, and largely outdated PC software underneath the modern, friendly, and virus-free OS offered by Apple.

Secondly, each team at Adobe listens to one group of customers (imagery, illustration, animation professionals, video people, you name em). What customers do you listen to? The ones buying games, or the ones buying operating systems glued into the machines they buy?

Adobe has customers. You have the entire market. Adobe does one kind of application set for one tiny, small, miniscule market. It’s far, far easier for Adobe to a) listen and b) respond. What consumers built that hog of an operating system. Where did they get the ideas from for that monster?

You might get paid to attend focus groups and listen to customers bitch about what they want or whine about what they think they need, but Microsoft ain’t Adobe. The demographics are different, and believe it from someone who has done contract work for 22 years years for both companies, their culture is different. Very, very different.

Gary in tampa

On 9/19/07 9:14 AM, in article
, "Cynicor" wrote:

Gary wrote:

Adobe spends lots — lots — of time, money, and effort listening to people. You want to not be heard? Try Microsoft, or Quark, or any of about twelve hundred other software companies out there.

I work for Microsoft, and I can tell you that this isn’t true. We spend lots of time, money, and effort listening to customers. My group is continually improving our product in response to online feedback, customer focus research, direct correspondence, and face-to-face discussions. The spread in satisfied vs. dissatisfied numbers is one of the major drivers company-wide, and is built into the review ratings of many high-level execs.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:14:26 -0400, Gary wrote:

I run a Mac, which gets no viruses, while running (in a cheap, low-draw window) anything from your entire hosed operating system. Things like MS software, straight-from-the-boxes Oracle apps, Autocad, anything I want. Along with really cool software the likes of which you’ve never imagined. The Mac provides a real-time connection between the applications we run and the operating system responsible for keeping them running.
And you hate the Mac, huh? You ain’t worked on one, or you can’t afford one. Either way, that’s too bad.

I bought a new Mac once and found it to be a primitive, under powered, over priced piece of junk. I was on it less than five minutes when it locked up on me….so much for stability. In less than a year, I had to replace one of the disk drives in it, and it wasn’t used all that much, plus the Mac version of the drive was 30% more expensive than the PC version of the exact same drive. It wasn’t used much because I couldn’t find enough software to do what I needed. I was stuck with either the poor selection that came with it, buy one or two expensive programs that would do what I needed, or in most cases, there just wasn’t a program. Meanwhile, on my old PC, I had my pick of numerous programs, some of them freeware, that would do what I wanted, so I ended up using that most of the time.
By the way, did they ever make a program that would do
auto-posting to the newsgroups….I mean besides Hogwasher, which was barely usable? (I had 4 auto-posting programs on my PC and two were freeware.)
One thing I never see mentioned…..if I want, I can build a PC to suit my needs. There are hundreds of motherboards to choose from, numerous chipsets, video cards, sound cards, power supplies, etc. to choose from, to build a system catered to me. Apple won’t let you build your own system, you have to buy whatever they offer, and they only have a small selection of ready built systems. I guess Apple users aren’t do-it-yourselfers.
Anyway, I don’t want to get into another Mac versus PC
war….nothing good ever comes out of them, since Mac users like their systems, and PC users like their’s.<g>

Talker

I wrote the second book ever published for Adobe Press on a PC, and we write college textbooks for three platforms — so it’s not like I’m a Mac-o-phile drugged out on the little bing sound. I’m a technician that knows the differences — real time, real world — between Macs, PCs (running any OS) and Unix/Linux boxes.

I gotta disagree with you about the Macintosh. Far more stable than the other two boxes is only the beginning of the argument — but it’s enough for me, man.

gary

In article ,
Talker wrote:

In less than a year, I had to replace one of the disk drives in it, and it wasn’t used all that much, plus the Mac version of the drive was 30% more expensive than the PC version of the exact same drive.

Oops, you just gave yourself away as a troll.

You made a mistake that reveals that you have never used a Mac. You see, there is no such thing as a "Mac version" of hard drive. Hard drives in Macs and PCs are absolutely identical in every single respect. You can pull a hard drive out of a PC and put it into a Mac, and vice versa.

Nice try, though.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit wrote:

In article ,
Talker wrote:

In less than a year, I had to replace one of the disk drives in it, and it wasn’t used all that much, plus the Mac version of the drive was 30% more expensive than the PC version of the exact same drive.

Oops, you just gave yourself away as a troll.

You made a mistake that reveals that you have never used a Mac. You see, there is no such thing as a "Mac version" of hard drive. Hard drives in Macs and PCs are absolutely identical in every single respect. You can pull a hard drive out of a PC and put it into a Mac, and vice versa.

Playing devil’s advocate here, but maybe it was in the days when Macs had SCSI drives?

(Ooh! Strange connection: troll->goats->SCSI.)

Andrew

tacit wrote:

In article ,
Talker wrote:

In less than a year, I had to replace one of the disk drives in it, and it wasn’t used all that much, plus the Mac version of the drive was 30% more expensive than the PC version of the exact same drive.

Oops, you just gave yourself away as a troll.

You made a mistake that reveals that you have never used a Mac. You see, there is no such thing as a "Mac version" of hard drive. Hard drives in Macs and PCs are absolutely identical in every single respect. You can pull a hard drive out of a PC and put it into a Mac, and vice versa.
Nice try, though.

I would say that I used SCSI drives up till about 5 years a go. Faster and had them striped as well. Mac’s came out with the G3 which had ATA drives but the servers still had SCSI drives.

So whats your problem?

In article ,
"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Playing devil’s advocate here, but maybe it was in the days when Macs had SCSI drives?

The original poster claimed to have a new, Intel-based Mac…which does not use SCSI. 🙂

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:14:58 -0400, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Talker wrote:

In less than a year, I had to replace one of the disk drives in it, and it wasn’t used all that much, plus the Mac version of the drive was 30% more expensive than the PC version of the exact same drive.

Oops, you just gave yourself away as a troll.

You made a mistake that reveals that you have never used a Mac. You see, there is no such thing as a "Mac version" of hard drive. Hard drives in Macs and PCs are absolutely identical in every single respect. You can pull a hard drive out of a PC and put it into a Mac, and vice versa.
Nice try, though.

I don’t appreciate being called a trolI. Maybe if you read what I said, you’d figure that out. I know there is no such thing as a Mac only hard drive. I said I had a disk drive that went bad. The disk drive that went bad was a Zip Disk Drive that was built into the laptop that I purchased from MacWorld.
Hello, read what I posted. I still have the bad one here, would you like me to send it to you?

Talker