activation question

I really don’t think Adobe meant ‘low level’ when they said low level! The activation files are:
AdobeLM.dll
emu.dll
Tw10122.dat
If you install CS then activate it. You can backup these 3 files and if you do a fresh install, restore these file to the Photoshop directory and go on using your software.
This information was given to me by an associate whom I believe, has successfully re-installed CS on a fresh hard drive and not had to re-activate it.

Keep in mind I’m not a programmer. I myself often wonder at some of the statements Adobe make about activation. If I ever have a problem with activation, you can be sure I’ll scream long and hard about it. Until recently I still used PS version 3.0 on an old PC I kept for making photocards. Given that it’s pretty old and I didn’t have an activation issue, I wonder if Adobe will re-activate CS when it’s 7 years old and re-installed?

Doug
————————
"Jack" wrote in message

I’m thinking of upgrading to CS and trying to find more technical details about activation (I am not looking for a crack).
Adobe web site is not much help.

From Adobe web site:
"As long as you don’t "low-level" reformat your hard drive, you will not

be

required to reactivate Photoshop CS software. Please note that normal utilities (provided by the operating system vendor) for reformatting the hard drive do not perform a "low-level" reformat."
They also mention that
"Adobe has worked with a third-party developer on its product activation process"

Does anybody know where they store the activation information if usual formatting won’t erase it? Is there some areas on the harddrive what users cannot access?
If there is then I still want to know what information is stored there and who was the
third party developer whose software is used for activation? I always thought that the best way to get rid of viruses and spyware is reformat and reinstall but it seems to be not the case anymore, scary.
I don’t mind WinXP activation as there are good descriptions how it works

so

I can understand it. But there is also Intuit whose activation software installed spyware on paying customers computers.
I’m not gonna upgrade until I fully understand how the CS activation

works,

what information is being collected and sent back to Adobe (and third

party)

and where is it stored?

Thanks

That is a good point. I really can’t see how the activation thing i going to kill the pirates out there. They always have a ‘fix’ fo things. Also 9 out of 10 pirates would never buy the software if i wasn’t crackable. So now us legit users have to pay the price. I alway admired Adobe for not implementing the activation in the past. I rea along time that someday all sofware will be on a central computer an you will pay (like a subscription) to run the software throught you PC. Now that would suck XXX

thereal
———————————————————— ———– Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
———————————————————— ———– View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message26245.htm

I know that the software vendors would like to do this but I really can not see this happening.
You must remember that they can only force us to use software like this if we dip into our pockets and buy the software. But just imagine if people do not dip into there pocket and buy the software due to the fact there is so many different things that could stop you using the software, such as bad network connection. I think people like to have the software physically there. I know that when you pay for the software you are not buying the software itself, you are buying the licence to run it. But if I believe right the licence most people get with the software does not have a time limit and as such there should be no problems running it for X amount of years. If the software was kept on a central server they could force people to go onto a yearly contract.

NIK

"thereal7" wrote in message

That is a good point. I really can’t see how the activation thing is going to kill the pirates out there. They always have a ‘fix’ for things. Also 9 out of 10 pirates would never buy the software if it wasn’t crackable. So now us legit users have to pay the price. I always admired Adobe for not implementing the activation in the past. I read along time that someday all sofware will be on a central computer and you will pay (like a subscription) to run the software throught your PC. Now that would suck XXX.

thereal7
———————————————————— ———— Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
———————————————————— ———— View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message26245.html

The activation files are:
AdobeLM.dll
emu.dll
Tw10122.dat
If you install CS then activate it. You can backup these 3 files and if you do a fresh install, restore these file to the Photoshop directory and go on using your software.
This information was given to me by an associate whom I believe, has successfully re-installed CS on a fresh hard drive and not had to re-activate it.

This must be a system-specific set of files as I do not have the emu.dll file anywhere on my HD. There are, in addition, many other files with the exact same time and date of creation in my \Photoshop CS folder, so it would be prudent to back up everything with the exact same time and date stamp as the AdobeLM.dll, I would think.

"mdavis" wrote in message

The activation files are:
AdobeLM.dll
emu.dll
Tw10122.dat
If you install CS then activate it. You can backup these 3 files and if

you

do a fresh install, restore these file to the Photoshop directory and go

on

using your software.
This information was given to me by an associate whom I believe, has successfully re-installed CS on a fresh hard drive and not had to re-activate it.

This must be a system-specific set of files as I do not have the emu.dll file anywhere on my HD. There are, in addition, many other files with the exact same time and date of creation in my \Photoshop CS folder, so it

would

be prudent to back up everything with the exact same time and date stamp

as

the AdobeLM.dll, I would think.

If it works on different computer without activation then it’s not system specific, maybe serial number specific set of files. Still, if it’s that easy it defeats the purpose of activation.

I’m still wondering about Adobes statement about no need for reactivation after re-formatting of HD. If that’s the case then something is written to harddrive what can’t be deleted or read by user.
I remember reading something for a while ago about not published ATA commands and not accessible areas on harddrives (reserved for DRM purposes). If Adobe somehow makes use of these it means others can too and now I need to worry about spyware I can’t even see or delete.
Assuming Adobes statements are correct the thing is becoming scary. I do more research.

Jack wrote:
<snip>

This must be a system-specific set of files as I do not have the emu.dll file anywhere on my HD. There are, in addition, many other files with the exact same time and date of creation in my \Photoshop CS folder, so it

I’m curious about the lack of a emu.dll – what OS you useing?

would

be prudent to back up everything with the exact same time and date stamp

as

the AdobeLM.dll, I would think.

If it works on different computer without activation then it’s not system specific, maybe serial number specific set of files. Still, if it’s that easy it defeats the purpose of activation.

I’m still wondering about Adobes statement about no need for reactivation after re-formatting of HD. If that’s the case then something is written to harddrive what can’t be deleted or read by user.
I remember reading something for a while ago about not published ATA commands and not accessible areas on harddrives (reserved for DRM purposes). If Adobe somehow makes use of these it means others can too and now I need to worry about spyware I can’t even see or delete.
Assuming Adobes statements are correct the thing is becoming scary. I do more research.

there is a difference between a ‘format’ and a "lowlevel" format. when the opsys does a format it only marks the sector on the disk as ‘unused’, it does not remove or write over any data. it also doesn’t scrap the system info stored on the disk – "partition" info as an example. a lowlevel format on the other hand is done by the disk controller firmwear. it get a little compilcated to explain but in general the disk is divided into cylinders and heads. an individal head/cylinder combo is a track, tracks are divided into sectors. ( not always – it can be done differently by useing differnet combos of cylinder/head) each sector has a leader/trailer "marker" space between it and the next sector ( to compensate for slight speed variations that could overwrite a following sector) also a "compensation" is needed because of the change in speed as the head moves out from the center of the disk. a lowlevel format rebuilds all these "marks" on the disk and as a result completely destroys any ability it has to recover thie old data ( the data may still be there! but becasue the HDC can’t find it it is effectivly erased. there are ways of recovering a good part of the data – but it involes a special scan of the media and a "guess" of what is what).

ATA hard drives use a boot record which under some circumstances could be used to hold information specific to an application. If a few vendors use this method, the drive will cease to function. ATA hard drives are descended from the original RLL (run length limited) drives which heralded the arrival of drives over 2 gig in size.

These drives (like all ATA drives since) hide flaws in the surface of the disk by using an error correction cylinder. Because of this, it is impossible to ‘low level’ format the disk without destroying the ECC which effectively destroys the drive.

Formatting a hard drive completely erases all data on the drive and it is not an operating system specific process. Linux, Unix and all Microsoft’s operating systems have a format utility. Some switches are available when calling format to alter the way in which it works.

Under MS systems the /q switch will leave the existing format untouched and destroy the first letter of all files on the drive. MS typically ‘erases’ a file by replacing the first character of it’s name with an underline character. DOS and Windows see this as an invitation to overwrite the file so if Adobe did somehow devise a method of retaining activation data on a drive after it has been formatted, I would sure as hell like to see it. It would re-write the book on data storage!
Doug

Techno Aussie wrote:

Under MS systems the /q switch will leave the existing format untouched and destroy the first letter of all files on the drive. MS typically ‘erases’ a file by replacing the first character of it’s name with an underline character. DOS and Windows see this as an invitation to overwrite the file so if Adobe did somehow devise a method of retaining activation data on a drive after it has been formatted, I would sure as hell like to see it. It would re-write the book on data storage!
Doug

you’re full of shit

I’m curious about the lack of a emu.dll – what OS you useing?

WinXP Home

Techno Aussie wrote:

Given that it’s pretty old and I didn’t have an activation issue, I wonder if Adobe will re-activate CS when it’s 7 years old and re-installed?

1. There is no way to tell, and Adobe has probably not decided what they will do. Also, any such decision can be reversed at any time. As long as you are dependent on a specific ativation service in order to run the program they effectively control your work – since you can do nothing without the software. But you can be sure that they will do what they can to convince their customers that there is no danger.

2. Why do people actually accept software which cannot be installed without the "permission" of the manufacturer? If you buy a hammer or any other kind of tool, would you like it if the manufacturer ruled that you were required to register or activate the tool before you were allowed to use it, and repeat the process after you move to a new place?

3. The only way to be safe and certain, is that we all say no to any form of product activation.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

pioe[rmv] wrote:

Techno Aussie wrote:

Given that it’s pretty old and I didn’t have an activation issue, I wonder if Adobe will re-activate CS when it’s 7 years old and re-installed?

1. There is no way to tell, and Adobe has probably not decided what they will do. Also, any such decision can be reversed at any time. As long as you are dependent on a specific ativation service in order to run the program they effectively control your work – since you can do nothing without the software. But you can be sure that they will do what they can to convince their customers that there is no danger.

2. Why do people actually accept software which cannot be installed without the "permission" of the manufacturer? If you buy a hammer or any other kind of tool, would you like it if the manufacturer ruled that you were required to register or activate the tool before you were allowed to use it, and repeat the process after you move to a new place?
3. The only way to be safe and certain, is that we all say no to any form of product activation.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Say, what’s the deal with activation?

I mean, I’m still using PS7 and am very satisfied with it. In other words I don’t really care to start using PS8 (CS) until I feel that I can’t do any decent work with ver7 (not very likely, tho). But this constant whining about activation from many users made me wonder…

Do you have to activate the product every time you want to use it, or just at install time (like MS WinXP, and the like)?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:20:07 +0100, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Say, what’s the deal with activation?

I mean, I’m still using PS7 and am very satisfied with it. In other words I don’t really care to start using PS8 (CS) until I feel that I can’t do any decent work with ver7 (not very likely, tho). But this constant whining about activation from many users made me wonder…

Do you have to activate the product every time you want to use it, or just at install time (like MS WinXP, and the like)?

Hi, Branko,

It’s not whining, it’s principle. You have to activate when you install. Every time you install. So, if your computer crashes and you have to reinstall, you have to reactivate. If you change enough of your computer system so that’s significantly different (such as new hard disk and a couple of other things) you have to reactivate. If you try and reactivate more than five times (more than enough according to Adobe) then you’re going to find it tough to get the activation out of them. And so forth. And who will this affect? Only those of us who are honest enough to actually purchase the software. it doesn’t affect the pirates who have had a usable crack for the software since a couple of days before the software was officially released.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:20:07 +0100, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Say, what’s the deal with activation?

I mean, I’m still using PS7 and am very satisfied with it. In other words I don’t really care to start using PS8 (CS) until I feel that I can’t do any decent work with ver7 (not very likely, tho). But this constant whining about activation from many users made me wonder…
Do you have to activate the product every time you want to use it, or just at install time (like MS WinXP, and the like)?

Hi, Branko,

It’s not whining, it’s principle. You have to activate when you install. Every time you install. So, if your computer crashes and you have to reinstall, you have to reactivate. If you change enough of your computer system so that’s significantly different (such as new hard disk and a couple of other things) you have to reactivate. If you try and reactivate more than five times (more than enough according to Adobe) then you’re going to find it tough to get the activation out of them. And so forth. And who will this affect? Only those of us who are honest enough to actually purchase the software. it doesn’t affect the pirates who have had a usable crack for the software since a couple of days before the software was officially released.

Thanks, Hecate, for the info. That certainly seems like a pain in the arse. Glad I don’t need CS… There’s been talk about per-use charge for software such as PS. The idea was, of course, abandoned, but not completely, I’d say.

Imagine, sending a request to start the app… filling out the form(s), risking your credit card number to sniffers every time you need to start Photoshop… on-line timer ticking away… Yuk! OTOH, it isn’t but one step from the current concept to the above mentioned "pay-per-use" (PPU for short). "Adobe Photoshop CS PPU" 🙁

One of my greatest decisions two years ago was: "No UPGRADES until I really and badly need them." So far, it turns out I was right. The thing that made me decide this was that I saw Japanese coleagues using Quark 3.22, Photoshop 6 and Illustrator 8 for their most beautiful works. If it works, then use it. That’s their way. I like that. "The way of the Samurai." (My great-grandfather is a descendant of a samurai, BTW.) 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

—
Branko Vukelic ()

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:36:10 +0100, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Thanks, Hecate, for the info. That certainly seems like a pain in the arse. Glad I don’t need CS… There’s been talk about per-use charge for software such as PS. The idea was, of course, abandoned, but not completely, I’d say.
Imagine, sending a request to start the app… filling out the form(s), risking your credit card number to sniffers every time you need to start Photoshop… on-line timer ticking away… Yuk! OTOH, it isn’t but one step from the current concept to the above mentioned "pay-per-use" (PPU for short). "Adobe Photoshop CS PPU" 🙁

One of my greatest decisions two years ago was: "No UPGRADES until I really and badly need them." So far, it turns out I was right. The thing that made me decide this was that I saw Japanese coleagues using Quark 3.22, Photoshop 6 and Illustrator 8 for their most beautiful works. If it works, then use it. That’s their way. I like that. "The way of the Samurai." (My great-grandfather is a descendant of a samurai, BTW.) 🙂

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images – from a photographic POV that’s exceptionally useful. However, at least for now, I’ll forgo that for the privilege of *not* having to activate my PS every third time or so I change something on my computer 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

CS does not have that feature! Most filters still work on 8 bits images only. As far as I can see, the number of filters that work in 16 bits has not changed.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:03:15 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

CS does not have that feature! Most filters still work on 8 bits images only. As far as I can see, the number of filters that work in 16 bits has not changed.

According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …

I’m sure a lot of photographers will have bought it on that basis alone. It’s noticeable that all the reviews said that was one of the main features. Let me quote you:

"Another major advance that will be appreciated by all professional users is Photoshop’s hugely expanded colour support for images with 16 bits per channel rather than the usual 8 bits. This has been ext4ended to include painting, text, shapes, styles, more filters and, most importantly, layers."

PC Pro Issue 11 Jan 2004

The guy who did that review is a design professional and you can find the whole review at:

http://www.designer-info.com/Photo/photoshop.htm

Maybe you just haven’t used them yet. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:03:15 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

CS does not have that feature! Most filters still work on 8 bits images only. As far as I can see, the number of filters that work in 16 bits has not changed.

According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …

Sure do. They don’t.

I’m sure a lot of photographers will have bought it on that basis alone. It’s noticeable that all the reviews said that was one of the main features. Let me quote you:

"Another major advance that will be appreciated by all professional users is Photoshop’s hugely expanded colour support for images with 16 bits per channel rather than the usual 8 bits. This has been ext4ended to include painting, text, shapes, styles, more filters and, most importantly, layers."

PC Pro Issue 11 Jan 2004

The guy who did that review is a design professional and you can find the whole review at:

http://www.designer-info.com/Photo/photoshop.htm

Maybe you just haven’t used them yet. 🙂

Or the one reference you cited doesn’t completely know what he’s talking about…

I just loading a 16 bit RGB image into CS and the only filter sections that are active are blur, noise, sharpen, stylize and other.

All of the rest in that section are greyed out. The filter gallery and everything in that particular section are greyed out as well. From where I sit, that isn’t "most" filters. That’s not to say I’m not happy with the functions that do now work in a 16 bit mode but it’d be nice if the pundits were halfway accurate on the topic.
—
Mike

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:03:15 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

CS does not have that feature! Most filters still work on 8 bits images only. As far as I can see, the number of filters that work in 16 bits has not changed.

According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit.

Then ‘all the publicity’ is wrong, or you read the wrong publicity, or you read something that isn’t there.

If you know different …

Yes, I do know different. As a long time Photoshop writer, I obviously use Photoshop CS already. If you load a 16 bits image, you get the following filter series: Blur (but not Lens Blur, Radial Blur or Smart Blur), Noise, Sharpen, Stylize (only Emboss, Find Edges and Solarize) and Other. None of the other filters will work in 16 bits, and the new Filter Gallery also does not work in 16 bits. I haven’t checked them one by one with Photoshop 7, but it seems at first glance that this is about what you got already in PS 7.

I’m sure a lot of photographers will have bought it on that basis alone. It’s noticeable that all the reviews said that was one of the main features. Let me quote you:

"Another major advance that will be appreciated by all professional users is Photoshop’s hugely expanded colour support for images with 16 bits per channel rather than the usual 8 bits. This has been ext4ended to include painting, text, shapes, styles, more filters and, most importantly, layers."

There _is_ a hughely expanded colour support for 16 bits images, just not more filters (well, perhaps one or two). One major improvement is that you now have Adjustment Layers (including masking of course) in 16 bits images.

Please note that this guy only says "more filters". He doesn’t mention how many more (one more is also more) and he certainly does NOT say that *most* filters now work in 16 bit. That is something you conclude, but that is based on nothing.

PC Pro Issue 11 Jan 2004

The guy who did that review is a design professional and you can find the whole review at:

http://www.designer-info.com/Photo/photoshop.htm

This review talks about a few new filters, but I don’t see anywhere that the reviewer claims that all those filters work in 16 bit.

Maybe you just haven’t used them yet. 🙂

Maybe you shouldn’t try to read between the lines what isn’t there in the first place… Apparently there is a trial version out of PS CS, so why don’t you see for yourself…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:03:15 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

CS does not have that feature! Most filters still work on 8 bits images only. As far as I can see, the number of filters that work in 16 bits has not changed.

According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …

I’m sure a lot of photographers will have bought it on that basis alone. It’s noticeable that all the reviews said that was one of the main features. Let me quote you:

"Another major advance that will be appreciated by all professional users is Photoshop’s hugely expanded colour support for images with 16 bits per channel rather than the usual 8 bits. This has been ext4ended to include painting, text, shapes, styles, more filters and, most importantly, layers."

PC Pro Issue 11 Jan 2004

The guy who did that review is a design professional and you can find the whole review at:

http://www.designer-info.com/Photo/photoshop.htm

Maybe you just haven’t used them yet. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

So, how does 16-bit color help people in print business? So far, I get great results from 8-bit pics, so I guess no much, right?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Mike Richmann wrote:

"Another major advance that will be appreciated by all professional users is Photoshop’s hugely expanded colour support for images with 16 bits per channel rather than the usual 8 bits. This has been ext4ended to include painting, text, shapes, styles, more filters and, most importantly, layers."

PC Pro Issue 11 Jan 2004

<snip>

Or the one reference you cited doesn’t completely know what he’s talking about…

I just loading a 16 bit RGB image into CS and the only filter sections that are active are blur, noise, sharpen, stylize and other.
All of the rest in that section are greyed out. The filter gallery and everything in that particular section are greyed out as well. From where I sit, that isn’t "most" filters. That’s not to say I’m not happy with the functions that do now work in a 16 bit mode but it’d be nice if the pundits were halfway accurate on the topic.
—
Mike

that PC pro reveiw looks pefectly accurate to me!!

while the number of (adobe supplied ) filters that work in 16bit has increased – why do you expect the add in filters to work? they were written for a version PS that didn’t support 16bit layers ( and barely supported 16bits at all), not any reason to make them do something the program couldn’t do. now that 16bit layers ect are available the aftermarket guys will start supporting it – and of course you’ll get to buy all new plugins 😉 ( be nice if they’d offer upgrade priceing eh?)

James Connell …

Techno Aussie wrote:

Under MS systems the /q switch will leave the existing format untouched and destroy the first letter of all files on the drive. MS typically ‘erases’ a file by replacing the first character of it’s name with an underline character. DOS and Windows see this as an invitation to overwrite the file so if Adobe did somehow devise a method of retaining activation data on a drive after it has been formatted, I would sure as hell like to see it. It would re-write the book on data storage!
Doug

you’re full of shit

What part do you think he’s full of shit?

The quick format only erases the FAT on the hard drive (assuming a FAT format in the first place), and does not format each sector. That’s why it only takes a few seconds.

thereal7 wrote:

That is a good point. I really can’t see how the activation thing is going to kill the pirates out there.

No, but even if it did, it could never justify our being forever dependent on the software company’s specific activation services and their future existence and availability in order to use the tools we need.

I read
along time that someday all sofware will be on a central computer and you will pay (like a subscription) to run the software throught your PC. Now that would suck XXX.

That is the wet dream for many of the leaders in the software industry. It also is the logical conclusion, if enough people continue to accept ever-increasing restrictions and limitations.

Remember, they also attempt to outlaw Linux. That is also fully consistent with their line: If use of legitimate Free Software became more widespread, it means the software industry is going to lose. Which will lead to less revenue for them.

Frankly, they deserve that. If a business needs to control their products after the customers have paid, they have forfeited their right to existence, and they cannot hide behind the "it is not a purchase, it is a license" either. Because that in itself does not define the content of that license.

By the way, the the GPL software license is designed to ensure the users’ freedom to use the programs. In contrast, Adobe’s, Microsoft’s Symantecs’ and Macromedia’s are designed to restrict what we can do with the software.

Seeing the direction where it goes, it is time to put the foot down and say NO.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:33:53 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

Please note that this guy only says "more filters". He doesn’t mention how many more (one more is also more) and he certainly does NOT say that *most* filters now work in 16 bit. That is something you conclude, but that is based on nothing.

This what I said, copied directly from my post:

The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

Now, tell me exactly how you conclude that I said *most* filters work in CS. I didn’t.

Your problem seems to be, as in other posts I have made, that you don’t actually read what I say – you just assume that I’ve said something and then argue against it. That is known as a Straw Man argument and I would suggest from your record that you do not too close to any naked flames.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:33:03 +0100, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

So, how does 16-bit color help people in print business? So far, I get great results from 8-bit pics, so I guess no much, right?

Not a lot. From what I’ve seen of the reviews, they mostly conclude that CS is aimed at Photographers. There’s not much in there that wasn’t already there for print. They have improved document production through a much tighter integration with Acrobat Pro/Indesign, but that’s about it.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:47:46 -0900, James Connell
wrote:

Mike Richmann wrote:

"Another major advance that will be appreciated by all professional users is Photoshop’s hugely expanded colour support for images with 16 bits per channel rather than the usual 8 bits. This has been ext4ended to include painting, text, shapes, styles, more filters and, most importantly, layers."

PC Pro Issue 11 Jan 2004

<snip>

Or the one reference you cited doesn’t completely know what he’s talking about…

I just loading a 16 bit RGB image into CS and the only filter sections that are active are blur, noise, sharpen, stylize and other.
All of the rest in that section are greyed out. The filter gallery and everything in that particular section are greyed out as well. From where I sit, that isn’t "most" filters. That’s not to say I’m not happy with the functions that do now work in a 16 bit mode but it’d be nice if the pundits were halfway accurate on the topic.
—
Mike

that PC pro reveiw looks pefectly accurate to me!!

while the number of (adobe supplied ) filters that work in 16bit has increased – why do you expect the add in filters to work? they were written for a version PS that didn’t support 16bit layers ( and barely supported 16bits at all), not any reason to make them do something the program couldn’t do. now that 16bit layers ect are available the aftermarket guys will start supporting it – and of course you’ll get to buy all new plugins 😉 ( be nice if they’d offer upgrade priceing eh?)

Thank you for actually taking the time to read what I said rather than what the other guy thinks I said. 🙂

And yes, that’s the point. Adobe can make more of their filters work but the can’t do anything about 3rd party filters.

My guess is – "hey look at all these cool 16 bit filters. New? Of course, they’re new, they’re 16 bit aren’t they? No, we don’t offer upgrades on new products…."

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Larry Bud wrote:

James Connell …

Techno Aussie wrote:

Under MS systems the /q switch will leave the existing format untouched and destroy the first letter of all files on the drive. MS typically ‘erases’ a file by replacing the first character of it’s name with an underline character. DOS and Windows see this as an invitation to overwrite the file so if Adobe did somehow devise a method of retaining activation data on a drive after it has been formatted, I would sure as hell like to see it. It would re-write the book on data storage!
Doug

you’re full of shit

What part do you think he’s full of shit?

The quick format only erases the FAT on the hard drive (assuming a FAT format in the first place), and does not format each sector. That’s why it only takes a few seconds.

And there are parts of a disk not touched by a format command. The boot sector is one obvious one. There are others.

—- Paul J. Gans

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:33:53 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

Please note that this guy only says "more filters". He doesn’t mention how many more (one more is also more) and he certainly does NOT say that *most* filters now work in 16 bit. That is something you conclude, but that is based on nothing.

This what I said, copied directly from my post:

The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

Now, tell me exactly how you conclude that I said *most* filters work in CS. I didn’t.

Your problem seems to be, as in other posts I have made, that you don’t actually read what I say – you just assume that I’ve said something and then argue against it. That is known as a Straw Man argument and I would suggest from your record that you do not too close to any naked flames.

From the posting I replied to, you said to Mr. Elzenga and I quote:

"According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …"

Looks pretty clear from here. And yet you claimed with a straight face to Messrs. Connell and Elzenga that you never said any such thing. Interesting stance, to put it mildly.

Next time, if you don’t write what you intended to write, say so. Don’t pretend the rest of us have a problem reading it.
—
Mike

Paul J Gans wrote:

And there are parts of a disk not touched by a format command. The boot sector is one obvious one. There are others.

If Adobe indeed does place activation data on areas on the drives which are not normally accessible for users, it makes the matter even more serious.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

nik wrote:

I know that when you pay for the software you are not buying the software itself, you are buying the licence to run it. But if I believe right the licence most people get with the software does not have a time limit and as such there should be no problems running it for X amount of years.

If the software in question requires activation, you can never (legally, that is) install and run the software without that activation. Hence, you can never have certainty for how long you will be allowed to run the program or how many times you will be allowed to install it.

Even if we suppose that activation will be available for us forever, the users of activation-crippled software are still dependent on the availability of the software company’s specific activation services and their willingness to activate at any time. Of course, they will do everything to convince us that this is safe and that there will be no problem.

But should we accept to pay for tools over which we have no control? What prevents us from stating that no company has any right to force us to be dependent on them for our future work with the tools, and thereby for the access to the data created with that program?

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:33:53 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

Please note that this guy only says "more filters". He doesn’t mention how many more (one more is also more) and he certainly does NOT say that *most* filters now work in 16 bit. That is something you conclude, but that is based on nothing.

This what I said, copied directly from my post:

The only feature that CS has which I would like is the ability to apply filters to 16 bit images

Now, tell me exactly how you conclude that I said *most* filters work in CS. I didn’t.

This is incredible! You seem to have a very short memory indeed. Fortunately, messages get recorded, so it’s easy to tell you exactly how I concluded this. As Mike Richmann also pointed out already, you said the following:

"According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …"

That was in message:

Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!pln-w!spln !dex!extra.n ewsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3
From: Hecate
Newsgroups: alt.graphics.photoshop
Subject: Re: activation question
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:32 +0000
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 39
Message-ID:
References: <KPMHb.853037$>
<eATHb.69059$>
<LRyMb.811$>

<1g7jsal.1cadsij1ytx492N%>
Reply-To: Hecate
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-422.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Xref: sn-us alt.graphics.photoshop:205828

Does that refresh you memory a little bit?…

Your problem seems to be, as in other posts I have made, that you don’t actually read what I say – you just assume that I’ve said something and then argue against it.

No, that’s not the problem at all. Seems to me that the problem is that you don’t even know what you write yourself. Obviously that makes it impossible to argue with you. In one message you say something, in the next you bluntly deny having ever said it.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate wrote:

while the number of (adobe supplied ) filters that work in 16bit has increased – why do you expect the add in filters to work? they were written for a version PS that didn’t support 16bit layers ( and barely supported 16bits at all), not any reason to make them do something the program couldn’t do. now that 16bit layers ect are available the aftermarket guys will start supporting it – and of course you’ll get to buy all new plugins 😉 ( be nice if they’d offer upgrade priceing eh?)

Thank you for actually taking the time to read what I said rather than what the other guy thinks I said. 🙂

What you said was: ""According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …". So I told you that indeed I know different. And then you denied having said that.

Must be hard if Alzheimer hits you so badly… 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:56:59 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

while the number of (adobe supplied ) filters that work in 16bit has increased – why do you expect the add in filters to work? they were written for a version PS that didn’t support 16bit layers ( and barely supported 16bits at all), not any reason to make them do something the program couldn’t do. now that 16bit layers ect are available the aftermarket guys will start supporting it – and of course you’ll get to buy all new plugins 😉 ( be nice if they’d offer upgrade priceing eh?)

Thank you for actually taking the time to read what I said rather than what the other guy thinks I said. 🙂

What you said was: ""According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …". So I told you that indeed I know different. And then you denied having said that.

I accept that I missed that. my fault for just going on what you replied to instead of checking back against my own post. It happens <shrug>. However, the error I made was in not saying "most *photoshop* filters. And if you want to check, see how many Photoshop filters work in 16 bit in C and then see how many work in 16 bit in 7.

Must be hard if Alzheimer hits you so badly… 😉

Unfortunately, you seem to react to anything that contradicts you by insulting the person that does so. And your comment isn’t anywhere near funny to someone who’s partner’s father died from Alzheimers only 18 months ago.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:56:59 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

while the number of (adobe supplied ) filters that work in 16bit has increased – why do you expect the add in filters to work? they were written for a version PS that didn’t support 16bit layers ( and barely supported 16bits at all), not any reason to make them do something the program couldn’t do. now that 16bit layers ect are available the aftermarket guys will start supporting it – and of course you’ll get to buy all new plugins 😉 ( be nice if they’d offer upgrade priceing eh?)

Thank you for actually taking the time to read what I said rather than what the other guy thinks I said. 🙂

What you said was: ""According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …". So I told you that indeed I know different. And then you denied having said that.

I accept that I missed that. my fault for just going on what you replied to instead of checking back against my own post. It happens <shrug>. However, the error I made was in not saying "most *photoshop* filters. And if you want to check, see how many Photoshop filters work in 16 bit in C and then see how many work in 16 bit in 7.

Must be hard if Alzheimer hits you so badly… 😉

Unfortunately, you seem to react to anything that contradicts you by insulting the person that does so. And your comment isn’t anywhere near funny to someone who’s partner’s father died from Alzheimers only 18 months ago.

I have a spare shovel I could sell to you if you wear your current one out digging…
—
Mike

Hecate wrote:

Thank you for actually taking the time to read what I said rather than what the other guy thinks I said. 🙂

What you said was: ""According to all the publicity most filters will now work in 16 bit. If you know different …". So I told you that indeed I know different. And then you denied having said that.

I accept that I missed that. my fault for just going on what you replied to instead of checking back against my own post. It happens <shrug>.

It’s easy to dismiss this by saying "it happens <shrug>", but it was quite insulting to suggest that I’m the one with a problem because I don’t read what you write. You could have said "sorry" instead of "<shrug>".

However, the error I made was in not saying "most *photoshop* filters.

No, that was not the error. You can’t hide behind that. We obviously have been talking about *Photoshop* filters all the time. Adobe cannot influence how third party filters work, so that has never been the issue.

And if you want to check, see how many Photoshop filters work in 16 bit in C and then see how many work in 16 bit in 7.

I did check in the meantime. Here is the score. In Photoshop 7, there are only 7 filters that work in 16 bits. In Photoshop CS the number has increased. There are now 22 filters that work in 16 bits. That is indeed quite a bit more, but it is still far from being *most* filters. The total number of filters (only Photoshops own filters, not third party filters) is 102. That means that the percentage of "16 bits savvy filters" is still only about 20%. It is remarkable that even the new filters aren’t all 16 bits. For example: Photoshop CS includes two new blur filters, Lens Blur and Average. Average is 16 bits, but Lens Blur is not.

Must be hard if Alzheimer hits you so badly… 😉

Unfortunately, you seem to react to anything that contradicts you by insulting the person that does so. And your comment isn’t anywhere near funny to someone who’s partner’s father died from Alzheimers only 18 months ago.

I’m sorry. But you were the one who started to be personal, by accusing me of not reading. "My problem was…" etc. I merely reacted to these personal accusations by becoming personal as well. I withdraw my remark.

By the way, that proves my point of an earlier discussion we had: adding a smiley doesn’t automatically make something funny, less insulting, or less painful. Now you know.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:57 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Well, we just aren’t going to agree about that…

Must be hard if Alzheimer hits you so badly… 😉

Unfortunately, you seem to react to anything that contradicts you by insulting the person that does so. And your comment isn’t anywhere near funny to someone who’s partner’s father died from Alzheimers only 18 months ago.

I’m sorry. But you were the one who started to be personal, by accusing me of not reading. "My problem was…" etc. I merely reacted to these personal accusations by becoming personal as well. I withdraw my remark.

I’m sorry if you found that insulting, and I’m sorry I didn’t apologise for that. You’re quite right, I should have. So i apologise now. I have no problem admitting when I’ve done something wrong. #

By the way, that proves my point of an earlier discussion we had: adding a smiley doesn’t automatically make something funny, less insulting, or less painful. Now you know.

There’s a difference – you made a personal comment, I made an "aren’t Mac users funny" comment. Very different. I’m sorry that you can’t see the difference. You should realise from my acceptance of Macs as valid choices, the same way I accept PCs or even the dreaded Linux, that my only concern with computers is that they do the job required in the way I want to do it. However, you should also realise that Mac users have a reputation for saying "Mac good, anything else bad". Which is why I send them up in general every now and again.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

I’m sorry. But you were the one who started to be personal, by accusing me of not reading. "My problem was…" etc. I merely reacted to these personal accusations by becoming personal as well. I withdraw my remark.

I’m sorry if you found that insulting, and I’m sorry I didn’t apologise for that. You’re quite right, I should have. So i apologise now. I have no problem admitting when I’ve done something wrong. #

Apology accepted.

By the way, that proves my point of an earlier discussion we had: adding a smiley doesn’t automatically make something funny, less insulting, or less painful. Now you know.

There’s a difference – you made a personal comment, I made an "aren’t Mac users funny" comment. Very different. I’m sorry that you can’t see the difference.

Of course I see the difference. But my point is and was that you can make a comment that people don’t see as funny, add a smiley and they still don’t think it’s funny. You can’t "hide behind a smiley" and then say it’s the other perons problem if he/she doesn’t see it your way.

You should realise from my acceptance of Macs as valid choices, the same way I accept PCs or even the dreaded Linux, that my only concern with computers is that they do the job required in the way I want to do it. However, you should also realise that Mac users have a reputation for saying "Mac good, anything else bad". Which is why I send them up in general every now and again.

Perhaps you shouldn’t, because it doesn’t serve any purpose. The only thing that can come out of it is yet another flame war. Yes, Mac users may have that reputation, but as always, this reputation comes mainly from a vocal minority. I believe most Mac users are open minded enough to know that Macs are not infallible and other systems can have their good points too. That doesn’t mean they don’t still prefer Macs over other systems, but that is another matter. I certainly look at it that way (I use Macs and PCs, but yes, I do prefer Mac) and that is why I get annoyed if somebody posts an "aren’t Mac users funny" message in respons to something I write. Especially if I try to help someone with a problem and it’s just a coincidence that this problem happens to be on a Mac this time. I see that as yet another PC troll. With or without a smiley.

OK, no hard feelings from my end. I suggest we stop this discussion.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:46:44 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

You should realise from my acceptance of Macs as valid choices, the same way I accept PCs or even the dreaded Linux, that my only concern with computers is that they do the job required in the way I want to do it. However, you should also realise that Mac users have a reputation for saying "Mac good, anything else bad". Which is why I send them up in general every now and again.

Perhaps you shouldn’t, because it doesn’t serve any purpose. The only thing that can come out of it is yet another flame war. Yes, Mac users may have that reputation, but as always, this reputation comes mainly from a vocal minority. I believe most Mac users are open minded enough to know that Macs are not infallible and other systems can have their good points too. That doesn’t mean they don’t still prefer Macs over other systems, but that is another matter. I certainly look at it that way (I use Macs and PCs, but yes, I do prefer Mac) and that is why I get annoyed if somebody posts an "aren’t Mac users funny" message in respons to something I write. Especially if I try to help someone with a problem and it’s just a coincidence that this problem happens to be on a Mac this time. I see that as yet another PC troll. With or without a smiley.

That’s fair enough.

OK, no hard feelings from my end. I suggest we stop this discussion.

Nor me. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui