Have PS7 is it worth installing Elements2 ?

JH
Posted By
John Hewett
Dec 24, 2003
Views
960
Replies
15
Status
Closed
Sounds a daft question I know, I have PS7 but I have just received a copy of Elements2 with my new Epson Scanner, is there anything worthwhile in Elements2 that is not in PS7 that would make it worthwhile installing it?

John.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

W
W-30
Dec 24, 2003
John,

Elements in a stripped version of Photoshop, so I don’t think you need to install Elements. It’s less of the same.
Unless you want a faster loading time and Elements is enough for you. I gave my copy to my neighbour.
JW
JP White
Dec 24, 2003
John Hewett wrote:
Sounds a daft question I know, I have PS7 but I have just received a copy of Elements2 with my new Epson Scanner, is there anything worthwhile in Elements2 that is not in PS7 that would make it worthwhile installing it?

John.

One neat feature of Elements is the panorama project feature. It automates what is sometimes a tricky operation in PS7. It is superior to Arcsoft’s panoramamaker IMHO. I understand Photoshop CS now sports a similar feature.

The interface has some improvements such as a file,save button on the toolbar like most Windows apps. No biggie here.

If you’re not into panoramas, giving it away is probably your best choice. (You probably can’t sell it if it came with your scanner, OEM software is typically nontransferable).

JP
TK
Ted Kerin
Dec 24, 2003
Also, FWIW, Elements has a "redeye brush tool", which you might like, although I prefer to fix redeye various ways in PS7.
AD
Alan D-W
Dec 26, 2003
"John Hewett" wrote in message
Sounds a daft question I know, I have PS7 but I have just received a copy of Elements2 with my new Epson Scanner, is there anything worthwhile in Elements2 that is not in PS7 that would make it worthwhile installing it?

John.

One small point: un-upgraded PS7 won’t run the Adobe Camera RAW plugin, you have to go to 7.01. Elements, however, will run it.
Alan.
Z
zuuum
Dec 28, 2003
Since the PhotoShop 7.0.1 patch/upgrade is a free download I can’t understand why one would install a second program. Whenever possible, I would choose not to install anything that may alter the operating system’s registry

"Alan D-W" wrote in message
"John Hewett" wrote in message
Sounds a daft question I know, I have PS7 but I have just received a copy of Elements2 with my new Epson Scanner, is there anything worthwhile in Elements2 that is not in PS7 that would make it worthwhile installing it?

John.

One small point: un-upgraded PS7 won’t run the Adobe Camera RAW plugin,
you
have to go to 7.01. Elements, however, will run it.
Alan.

H
honimarie
Dec 29, 2003
nope, i have elements. its a good version if you don’t have 7, elements wont take the actions you can download from the adobe share site. and a lot of the brushes and styles wont work.
http://www.purepersonals.com
B
blue
Dec 29, 2003
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:58:34 -0500, "Ted Kerin" wrote:

Also, FWIW, Elements has a "redeye brush tool", which you might like, although I prefer to fix redeye various ways in PS7.

I have an old copy of Photoshop Deluxe Business Edition that originally came with a piece of Software I purchased. It has an excellent "Remove Red Eye" feature.
MH
Matti Haveri
Dec 31, 2003
In article <PyGHb.1192$>,
"zuuum" wrote:

Whenever possible, I would choose not to install anything that may alter the operating system’s registry

With a Mac this (or viruses) would not be an issue…
Z
zuuum
Dec 31, 2003
Both issues, system corruption and viral scripts, are simply less common in Mac environments, not non-existent. Have you never heard of a Mac user having to reinstall their operating system because of redundancies or corruption???

"Matti Haveri" wrote in message
In article <PyGHb.1192$>,
"zuuum" wrote:

Whenever possible, I would choose not to install anything that may alter the operating system’s registry

With a Mac this (or viruses) would not be an issue…
N
Nehpets
Jan 1, 2004
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:36:36 GMT, zuuum in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
Both issues, system corruption and viral scripts, are simply less common in Mac environments, not non-existent. Have you never heard of a Mac user having to reinstall their operating system because of redundancies or corruption???

No they’re not — with MacOS X, the field is quite level. With the exception of viral scripts, you’re not worrying too much about accuracy, and more about rhetoric. One only has to look at the almost daily exploits discovered for MacOS X, and the security updates there have been lately to realize, that Macsters now have a grown up OS, with all the inherit issues that brings. The lack of virus scripts is nothing to do with the quality of the OS, but one more of exposure. If MacOS had 95% of the market, it to would be targeted, in terms of viral scripts, Trojans. In terms of system corruption, MacOS X is no better or worse than XP-Pro. Care to prove otherwise, with substantial empirical data?
H
Hecate
Jan 1, 2004
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:13:08 -0500, Nehpets
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:36:36 GMT, zuuum in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
Both issues, system corruption and viral scripts, are simply less common in Mac environments, not non-existent. Have you never heard of a Mac user having to reinstall their operating system because of redundancies or corruption???

No they’re not — with MacOS X, the field is quite level. With the exception of viral scripts, you’re not worrying too much about accuracy, and more about rhetoric. One only has to look at the almost daily exploits discovered for MacOS X, and the security updates there have been lately to realize, that Macsters now have a grown up OS, with all the inherit issues that brings. The lack of virus scripts is nothing to do with the quality of the OS, but one more of exposure. If MacOS had 95% of the market, it to would be targeted, in terms of viral scripts, Trojans. In terms of system corruption, MacOS X is no better or worse than XP-Pro. Care to prove otherwise, with substantial empirical data?

Actually, whilst I agree with most of what you said, because Mac OSSX is based on a Unix kernel, Mac users should be happy to know that they can now join in all the fun with all the Unix viruses that are around (and there’s more of them than there are for Windows simply because Unix has been around so much longer) 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
DL
Donald Link
Jan 1, 2004
"Matti Haveri" wrote in message
In article <PyGHb.1192$>,
"zuuum" wrote:

Whenever possible, I would choose not to install anything that may alter the operating system’s registry

With a Mac this (or viruses) would not be an issue…

Especially when you have a few million less users to write virus for.
MH
Matti Haveri
Jan 1, 2004
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

Mac users should be happy to know that they can now join in all the fun with all the Unix viruses that are around (and there’s more of them than there are for Windows simply because Unix has been around so much longer)

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh [old non-UNIX versions], about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread – most were confined to the laboratory." [clip]

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html>
H
Hecate
Jan 2, 2004
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:49:03 +0200, Matti Haveri
wrote:

In article ,
Hecate wrote:

Mac users should be happy to know that they can now join in all the fun with all the Unix viruses that are around (and there’s more of them than there are for Windows simply because Unix has been around so much longer)

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh [old non-UNIX versions], about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread – most were confined to the laboratory." [clip]

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html>

That is ludicrous to say the least. There are far more Unix viruses than that.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
N
Nehpets
Jan 2, 2004
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:15:05 +0000, Hecate in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:13:08 -0500, Nehpets
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:36:36 GMT, zuuum in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
Both issues, system corruption and viral scripts, are simply less common in Mac environments, not non-existent. Have you never heard of a Mac user having to reinstall their operating system because of redundancies or corruption???

No they’re not — with MacOS X, the field is quite level. With the exception of viral scripts, you’re not worrying too much about accuracy, and more about rhetoric. One only has to look at the almost daily exploits discovered for MacOS X, and the security updates there have been lately to realize, that Macsters now have a grown up OS, with all the inherit issues that brings. The lack of virus scripts is nothing to do with the quality of the OS, but one more of exposure. If MacOS had 95% of the market, it to would be targeted, in terms of viral scripts, Trojans. In terms of system corruption, MacOS X is no better or worse than XP-Pro. Care to prove otherwise, with substantial empirical data?

Actually, whilst I agree with most of what you said, because Mac OSSX is based on a Unix kernel, Mac users should be happy to know that they can now join in all the fun with all the Unix viruses that are around (and there’s more of them than there are for Windows simply because Unix has been around so much longer) 😉

Well that last statement is interesting. I’m very doubtful that there are more Unix viruses than Windoze ones. I’ve been using Unix and lately Linux, for close to 30 years. I’m resonably certain, that fact wouldn’t have escaped me. 😉

The point I’m simply making, is that Classic MacOS wasn’t vulnerable, only because it didn’t have the advanced services that Unix and versions of Windoze have had for years. That is no longer true with MacOS X. Anywho, viruses should be considered part of the security genre, along with trojans and the exploits they…exploit. The more services one has running, than the more one’s box is vulnerable.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections