Adobe LM Service

R
Posted By
Rick
Nov 12, 2003
Views
2967
Replies
58
Status
Closed
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

N
noone
Nov 13, 2003
License Manager ? Just guessing.

"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.

Rick

—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:

1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.

2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate

3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.

The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–

"noone" wrote in message
License Manager ? Just guessing.

"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

C
crapbottom
Nov 13, 2003
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.

Rick

—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.

2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate

3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–

"noone" wrote in message
License Manager ? Just guessing.

"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
I’d rather Adobe provide at least a bit of documentation for this service. BTW it was said in one group that the LM service will re-enable itself if it’s disabled. Amazing, no?

Rick

"crapbottom" wrote in message
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.

Rick

—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.

2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate

3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–

"noone" wrote in message
License Manager ? Just guessing.

"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
Yep, just confirmed. The service cannot be permanently disabled, and if the installer dll is renamed PS doesn’t load at all.

At least now we know the real reason why Win2K or XP is required.

Hey Chris, how does it feel to be a corporate whore as well as a bald-faced liar?

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
I’d rather Adobe provide at least a bit of documentation for this service. BTW it was said in one group that the LM service will re-enable itself if it’s disabled. Amazing, no?

Rick

"crapbottom" wrote in message
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.

Rick

—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.

2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate

3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–

"noone" wrote in message
License Manager ? Just guessing.

"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

N
noone
Nov 13, 2003
i’ll type a doc later – the service can be removed and perm. disabled and still have ps load

"Rick" wrote in message
Yep, just confirmed. The service cannot be permanently disabled, and if the installer dll is renamed PS doesn’t load at all.
At least now we know the real reason why Win2K or XP is required.
Hey Chris, how does it feel to be a corporate whore as well as a bald-faced liar?

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
I’d rather Adobe provide at least a bit of documentation for this service. BTW it was said in one group that the LM service will re-enable itself if it’s disabled. Amazing, no?

Rick

"crapbottom" wrote in message
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.

Rick

—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.

2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate

3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–

"noone" wrote in message
License Manager ? Just guessing.

"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?

Thanks,
Rick

R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
"noone" wrote in message
i’ll type a doc later – the service can be removed and perm. disabled and still have ps load

Looking forward to it. In the meantime I apologize to Chris for the rude comment, he probably had little or nothing to do with it. I just cannot believe Adobe is resorting to this. Services that enable themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy protection. Shame on them.

Rick
T
tacitr
Nov 13, 2003
Services that enable
themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy protection.

A worm is a computer program that copies itself from one system to another. A trojan is a program that claims to do one thing (like show pictures of tennis stars naked) but actually does something else (like email your AOL passwords back to the writer).


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
"Tacit" wrote in message
Services that enable
themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy protection.

A worm is a computer program that copies itself from one system to another. A trojan is a program that claims to do one thing (like show pictures of tennis stars naked) but actually does something else (like email your AOL passwords back to the writer).

And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission. I’ve been administering NT for as long as it’s existed and this is the first time I’ve run into a "legitimate" service that does this.

Rick
T
tacitr
Nov 13, 2003
And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.

True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are worms or Trojans.

But you knew that already. ๐Ÿ™‚

I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used on a form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.

You don’t have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny partition that’s in ISO format, it’s just a regular audio CD.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
"Tacit" wrote in message
And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.

True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are worms or Trojans.

But you knew that already. ๐Ÿ™‚

Right. I never claimed that.

I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used on a form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.

Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.

Rick
J
JJS
Nov 13, 2003
"Rick" wrote in message
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.

Dog gone it, I missed this thread. What do you claim Adobe is doing? Calling home?
R
Rick
Nov 13, 2003
"jjs" wrote in message
"Rick" wrote in message
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.

Dog gone it, I missed this thread. What do you claim Adobe is doing? Calling home?

That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:

1. The service wants internet access.

2. The service checks for hardware changes, and will prevent PS from running if it decides too much hardware in a system has been changed.

3. The service cannot be permanently disabled.

4. When the service is manually disabled it re-enables itself each time PS is started.

As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.

Rick
T
tacitr
Nov 14, 2003
As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.

The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There’s an FAQ on it at

http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq .shtml

I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it’s the USER who should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used…

More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you’ve paid your money for CS, and you don’t like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.

The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke it. Looks like I’m staying with 7; I don’t think I’ll be be buying 8.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
Rick
Nov 14, 2003
"Tacit" wrote in message
As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.

The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There’s an FAQ on it at
http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq .shtml
I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it’s the USER who should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used…
More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you’ve paid your money for CS, and you don’t like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.

The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke it. Looks like I’m staying with 7; I don’t think I’ll be be buying 8.

Thanks for the link. Despite Macrovision’s claim to the contrary SafeCast is a form of spyware.

This is akin to buying a book, taking it home, then discovering some pages are blank, except for an instruction to call the publisher to receive their permission to read them.

It’s official — the bean counters at Adobe are out of control.

Rick
L
l
Nov 14, 2003
In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$>,
"Rick" wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message
"Rick" wrote in message
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.

Dog gone it, I missed this thread. What do you claim Adobe is doing? Calling
home?

That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:

1. The service wants internet access.

What happens – or does not happen – if one wonยดt give the program internet access. Unplug the machine physically from whatever means it uses to connect or just use software to prevent outgoing traffic from certain ports. Or if the program is using ports needed by other programs, allow outgoing access only for those programs, or even deny all outgoing traffic without asking every time they want to connect? Sounds like a PITA if one has to go that far though.

Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?

..lauri
N
nospam
Nov 14, 2003
In article <bp2nat$6jr$>, l
wrote:

In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$>,
"Rick" wrote:
[…]
That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:

1. The service wants internet access.

According to Adobe it does not need internet access. That would be just nuts.

Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?

That’s not at all like Adobe. Even when their software checked the local net for other copies running the same serial number it would not bomb the program if there was no network. (Maybe it still does. Dunno.)
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 14, 2003
On 13 Nov 2003 21:13:51 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.

True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are worms or Trojans.

But you knew that already. ๐Ÿ™‚

I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used on a form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
You don’t have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny partition that’s in ISO format, it’s just a regular audio CD.

I’d consider that a trojan. It installs on my system and disables a feature of the existing system….


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Nov 14, 2003
I’d consider that a trojan. It installs on my system and disables a feature of the existing system….

Particularly in light of the fact that the dialog which comes up says the user *must* install the software in order for the CD to work, which is manifestly not the case.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
J
JJS
Nov 14, 2003
"Rick" wrote in message

Thanks for the link. Despite Macrovision’s claim to the contrary SafeCast is a form of spyware.

Are you sure? SafeNet is spyware, but SafeCast? Can you support your statement?
R
Rick
Nov 14, 2003
"jjs" wrote in message
In article <bp2nat$6jr$>, l
wrote:

In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$>,
"Rick" wrote:
[…]
That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:

1. The service wants internet access.

According to Adobe it does not need internet access. That would be just nuts.

Wants, not needs. If SafeCast can’t get internet access there are other ways of activating PS. By phone, fax etc. But the point is, it attempts an internet connection without explicit permission or even notification to the user or admin. Not even a log entry in Event Viewer. Nada.

Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?

That’s not at all like Adobe. Even when their software checked the local net for other copies running the same serial number it would not bomb the program if there was no network. (Maybe it still does. Dunno.)

If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?), beyond which one needs to contact Adobe directly. With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis, CS is virtually unusable. It’s the exact same reason I can’t upgrade the OSes on my systems to WinXP. If this trend continues among software developers eventually I’ll have obsolete and/or unsupported versions of most everything.

Rick
B
bhilton665
Nov 14, 2003
From: "Rick"

If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)

You can definitely activate it on two computers, I’ve already done that (two desktops).

Haven’t tried it a third time but I gather it will not do three.

With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis, CS is virtually unusable.

So don’t buy it. End of problem.

Bill
J
JJS
Nov 14, 2003
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "Rick"

If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)

You can definitely activate it on two computers, I’ve already done that
(two
desktops).

Haven’t tried it a third time but I gather it will not do three.
With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis,
CS is virtually unusable.

So don’t buy it. End of problem.

Yeah, I suppose we could all stay with an earlier version and be happy. Hell, eventually we would be called dinosaurs, hardware hippies, start some kinda electronic commune. To the streets, I say! Down with the Activation Pigs! Ya know, we just gotta get our Brothers and Sisters in the Euro economy in with us, ‘specially our socialist friends. What they pay for PS is outrageous.

End of problem.

Friday. Late. Stupid Tired.
A
annika1980
Nov 15, 2003
From: "crapbottom"

buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.

Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.
J
John
Nov 15, 2003
On 14 Nov 2003 01:33:21 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.

The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There’s an FAQ on it at
http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq .shtml
I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it’s the USER who should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used…
More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you’ve paid your money for CS, and you don’t like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.

The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke it. Looks like I’m staying with 7; I don’t think I’ll be be buying 8.

Considering the soeed that the Macrovision was cracked I hope that Adobe did not pay much for it. The best solution seems to be to follow "crapbottom’s" system earlier in this thread. By a legit copy, install with any serial number you like and apply the two cracked files.
R
Rick
Nov 15, 2003
"Annika1980" wrote in message
From: "crapbottom"

buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.

Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.

American software developers either have very short memories or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster. Lotus (remember 1-2-3?), Novell (remember their hardware based protection scheme?), etc. It won’t be any different in Adobe’s case. Microsoft got away with WPA because they
have an effective monopoly in their market and consumers did not have any viable (or at least practical) alternatives.

If their theories about casual piracy, and the claims that copy protection will reduce the price of software were true, Microsoft should have seen their revenues skyrocket with the release of WinXP, and it should have resulted in a lowering of prices for their products. But guess what? If you look at MS’s financials since the release of XP they’re spending far more supporting WPA than they’re receiving in increased revenue, and the price of XP hasn’t been reduced one red cent.

And as usual, when all’s said and done, the only people who are bearing the burden of copy protection are legitimate customers.

Rick
J
John
Nov 15, 2003
On 14 Nov 2003 22:06:29 GMT, (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

From: "Rick"

If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)

You can definitely activate it on two computers, I’ve already done that (two desktops).

Haven’t tried it a third time but I gather it will not do three.
With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis, CS is virtually unusable.

So don’t buy it. End of problem.

Bill

or refer to the post by "crapbotom" earlier in this thread
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 15, 2003
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:07:49 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
From: "crapbottom"

buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.

Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.

American software developers either have very short memories or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster.

I don’t think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is that they cancel business-to-home-copying – the most effective marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with two or more trained users.

Instead people will buy a software for home use that is cheaper or copy something different and recommend that when upgrading becomes a topic at their workplace.

Lotus (remember 1-2-3?), Novell (remember their hardware based protection scheme?), etc. It won’t be any different in Adobe’s case. Microsoft got away with WPA because they
have an effective monopoly in their market and consumers did not have any viable (or at least practical) alternatives.

And as usual, when all’s said and done, the only people who are bearing the burden of copy protection are legitimate customers.

I’d like to see a law that requires a working copy protection system that enforces individual licensing per user once a certain market share (20%) was reached. This would suddenly eliminate the tendency to create monopolies.

Michael

Rick

N
nospam
Nov 15, 2003
In article ,
(Xalinai) wrote:

I don’t think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is that they cancel business-to-home-copying – the most effective marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with two or more trained users.

Isn’t it a good idea to first limit this to our agenda: Adobe PS/CS? Do we know that Adobe is trying to limit the licensing in that manner? As I understand it, Adobe is permitting a home copy and work copy as long as both cannot (or are not) used at the same time.

I’d like to see a law that requires a working copy protection system that enforces individual licensing per user once a certain market share (20%) was reached. This would suddenly eliminate the tendency to create monopolies.

Seems more like an attempt at some kind of silly socialist metric. 20%? That’s crazy. What of a case like PS which has created the very best general purpose photographic manipulation software? You are saying that after their ground-breaking (and continuing) innovation they are limited to 20% success (of sorts). When you mandate such a thing, then the courts might revert to judgements similar to that which justified them to let authors copy proprietary software in order to compete (Apple case, early Eighties.) So ‘developers’ could reverse engineer PS, re-arrange the interface and sell Adobe’s investment. No way is that right.
C
crapbottom
Nov 15, 2003
these are easy as well – start up your *cough* protected audio cd, look in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall it, just disable it.

no more garbled music =)

"Tacit" wrote in message
And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.

True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all
worms
and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services
are
worms or Trojans.

But you knew that already. ๐Ÿ™‚

I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used
on a
form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If
you
allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes
with
direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
You don’t have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny partition that’s in ISO format, it’s just a regular audio CD.

Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Nov 15, 2003
My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.

Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different
product,
thus hurting Adobe in the long run.

Switch to what? While casual users and amateurs have many alternatives to choose from, people who work in the fields of professional prepress and printing don’t. It’s Photoshop or nothing.

I think the time is right for some other
graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.

Microsoft might be able to come up with an image editor suitable for home users, but there’s no way they could ever come up with an image editor that professionals will use. I mean, look at the utter scorn and contempt the prepress industru has for Microsoft’s page-layout application, Publisher–and rightly so. Writing a world-class image editor is more difficult than writing a page-layout app, and Microsoft can’t even get a page-layout app right.

The problem is, a program like Photoshop can’t be written by a computer programmer. Writing a program like Photoshop requires not only a team of programmers but *also* experts inthe fields of color theory, color modelling, printing, prepress, color separation, and so on. It’s tough to picture many companies other than Adobe who have the skills available to write something like Photoshop.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Nov 15, 2003
these are easy as well – start up your *cough* protected audio cd, look in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall it, just disable it.

Best be careful; according to the article on The Register, people who distribute that information are being prosecuted under the DMCA… ๐Ÿ™‚


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
Rick
Nov 15, 2003
"Tacit" wrote in message
these are easy as well – start up your *cough* protected audio cd, look in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall it, just disable it.

Best be careful; according to the article on The Register, people who distribute that information are being prosecuted under the DMCA… ๐Ÿ™‚

If it ever gets to the point in this country where the free exchange of information is met with a visit from the federal government, it’s time to find another, less fascist and repressive place to live.

Land of the free indeed. We’ve become a nation of pussy whipped corporate whores.

Rick
T
tacitr
Nov 15, 2003
If it ever gets to the point in this country where the free exchange of information is met with a visit from the federal government, it’s time to find another, less fascist and repressive place to live.

Actually, what happens is that the free exchange of information is met with a visit from lawyers and subpoenas. Just ask the owner of 2600 Magazine, who was prosecuted (and convicted!) under the DMCA for *linking to* information about DeCSS, the DVD player software.

Not for hosting it, mind you–linking to it.

Land of the free indeed. We’ve become a nation of pussy whipped corporate whores.

No argument here. In fact, I even have the T-shirt: "I am a consumer whore."


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
B
bhilton665
Nov 15, 2003
From: (Tacit)

Microsoft might be able to come up with an image editor suitable for home users, but there’s no way they could ever come up with an image editor that professionals will use.

What they’d probably do is declare the imaging editor a "vital part of the Operating System" and imbed it in Win 2006, then make it so Windoze could hardly run without it, and any and all attempts to load competing solutions would be thwarted in various subtle ways.

If you don’t believe me ask the guys who used to be Netscape ๐Ÿ™‚

Bill
(tongue in cheek)
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 16, 2003
Annika1980 wrote:
From: "crapbottom"

buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.

Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.

I agree about the pirating, but I wonder how much money
pirating actually costs Adobe. Many private individuals who pirate would not buy Photoshop if they could not pirate it. It is simply not worth it to them.

Where big money has been lost in the past is with companies that did massive piracy, putting Photoshop on 50 machines without paying for it — or paying for only one copy. That sort of thing.

Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how they might be enforced? I understand that one does not have to activate such copies. If I am right Adobe is not closing their largest money loss hole.

And it is aggravating for customers.

I have not as yet upgraded. I will probably do so by the end of the month. Between home and office I have five
machines. Three run Windows. Which one do I leave out?

What I’ll likely do is run version 7 on one machine and
CS on the other two. There’s no hope for the Linux machines though if Photoshop and Dreamweaver ran on Linux I could chuck Windows and not have to worry about *that* problem. But what if I were a new user?

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 16, 2003
Xalinai wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:07:49 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
From: "crapbottom"

buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine

That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.

Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.

American software developers either have very short memories or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster.

I don’t think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is that they cancel business-to-home-copying – the most effective marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with two or more trained users.

Instead people will buy a software for home use that is cheaper or copy something different and recommend that when upgrading becomes a topic at their workplace.

[snip]

With feature sets in such programs getting better and
better, many companies will decide to save money and
buy the cheaper programs. After all, as you point out,
their employees will already know how to use them.

Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?

When your version is made non-functional by operating
system changes, will you buy another copy or will you
get a cheaper Office Suite that does everything you
normally want?

—- Paul J. Gans
TA
Timo Autiokari
Nov 16, 2003
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:55:44 -0600, (jjs) wrote:

Do we know that Adobe is trying to limit the licensing in that manner? As I understand it, Adobe is permitting a home copy and work copy as long as both cannot (or are not) used at the same time.

In companies/corporations the installation set in most cases is not available for the employee so even if Adobe permits the home copy the company does not, the installation set (Corporate version btw that currently does not require Activation) is sitting there in a server on the intranet and only the IT people have access to it.

What comes to the issue of the benefits of Activation, for instance I am responsible for the workflow at our lab, we have ten licenses and we will stay with the v7. I made this decision because we will never accept the Activation so Photoshop is no longer an option for us. When the time comes that v7 is not enough we will switch to another software.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
TA
Timo Autiokari
Nov 16, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how they might be enforced?

There is no site-licences for Photoshop but the Corporate distribution has been there for several years, they come with 5 or more licenses. Could someone pls give examples about the pricing?

I understand that one does not have to activate such copies.

Currently that is so.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
B
bhilton665
Nov 16, 2003
From: Paul J Gans

Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?

Having worked 20 years in a Dilbert-like corporate environment I can answer that … as soon as your biggest customer sends you a document using the latest version of Word or Excel you’ll find you *REALLY* need to upgrade ๐Ÿ™‚
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 17, 2003
Timo Autiokari wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how they might be enforced?

There is no site-licences for Photoshop but the Corporate distribution has been there for several years, they come with 5 or more licenses. Could someone pls give examples about the pricing?

I understand that one does not have to activate such copies.

Currently that is so.

Thanks Timo.

Ihen I’d guess that there is far more financial loss to
Adobe because of piracy there than piracy by single
individuals. There would be a major temptation for
someone in IT to "borrow" it.

In other words, does piracy *really* cost Adobe money?
The quick answer of "yes" could easily be wrong. I think that most pirates would not buy the software if they did not have access to a pirated copy.

And among those that would, I think that companies are
a major source of such people.

It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 17, 2003
Bill Hilton wrote:
From: Paul J Gans

Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?

Having worked 20 years in a Dilbert-like corporate environment I can answer that … as soon as your biggest customer sends you a document using the latest version of Word or Excel you’ll find you *REALLY* need to upgrade ๐Ÿ™‚

Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course, we have no site license for Word…

Luckily Open Office will read Word formatted documents.

—- Paul J. Gans, who needs his extra cash for Photoshop CS
N
nospam
Nov 17, 2003
In article <bp98ku$brn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.

Can you substantiate that or any of your claims? Sounds like impressionistic speculation to me.
N
nospam
Nov 17, 2003
In article <bp98nu$brn$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:

Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course, we have no site license for Word…

You metion quite often that you know of stolen software, and here you mention it again. So, are you saying that New York University has pirated licensed software? Be a hero. Turn them in. Hell, if you don’t have tenure by now, then you may as well go out with a bang.
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 17, 2003
On 16 Nov 2003 11:31:15 GMT, (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

From: Paul J Gans

Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?

Having worked 20 years in a Dilbert-like corporate environment I can answer that … as soon as your biggest customer sends you a document using the latest version of Word or Excel you’ll find you *REALLY* need to upgrade ๐Ÿ™‚

That’s the moment you either find someone with a budget for an upgrade or change to the next cheaper package that has an import filter…

Best chances for an upgrade: The moron who sends incompatible files is the controller for the budget….

Michael
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 17, 2003
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.

Yes.

But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.

Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run.

Switch to what? While casual users and amateurs have many alternatives to choose from, people who work in the fields of professional prepress and printing don’t. It’s Photoshop or nothing.

People who work for prepress/printing are how many percent of the current users?

Michael
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 17, 2003
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:40:41 -0600, (jjs) wrote:

In article <bp98ku$brn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.

Can you substantiate that or any of your claims? Sounds like impressionistic speculation to me.

It is well known that many illegal film copies have marks and distribution signs that show that they come from promotional distribution. But backtracking is impossible when marks are not identifying each copy or if a studio doen’t want to accuse their most favourite and prominent critics…

Michael
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 17, 2003
jjs wrote:
In article <bp98ku$brn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.

Can you substantiate that or any of your claims? Sounds like impressionistic speculation to me.

Nope. I’m not the FBI. But it has been in the papers
for weeks now. That’s how illegal duplicators get
DVD versions of films that have not even been released
out in a hurry.

Or are you talking about the current bruhaha over stolen movies?

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 17, 2003
jjs wrote:
In article <bp98nu$brn$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:

Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course, we have no site license for Word…

You metion quite often that you know of stolen software, and here you mention it again. So, are you saying that New York University has pirated licensed software? Be a hero. Turn them in. Hell, if you don’t have tenure by now, then you may as well go out with a bang.

Come on. My knowlege of stolen software comes from reading the newspapers. Software companies began cracking down a few years ago — going to customer’s sites and asking to see documentation for the copies of their programs that
were in use.

They collected some big bucks at the time.

Another thing that’s been in the papers is "piracy" in the government, both state and national. Often the
software budget is small to non-existant and so small
miracles happen.

Most universities don’t pirate (though students sometimes do, witness the music downloading business). They get
excellent academic prices or site licenses. Except my
place does not have an Office site license. So I have
to use other software to read what could have been sent
out as ASCII text. Turns out that Open Office does quite well. And no activation….

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 17, 2003
Xalinai wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.

Yes.

But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.

That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.

[…]

—- Paul J. Gans
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 17, 2003
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Xalinai wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.

Yes.

But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.

That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.
I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…

The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…

Michael
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 18, 2003
Xalinai wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Xalinai wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.

Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.

Yes.

But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.

That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.
I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…

The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…

<grin>

Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up the next one more quickly.

But if it is your first program…..

—- Paul J. Gans
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 18, 2003
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Xalinai wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:
That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.
I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…

The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…

<grin>

Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up the next one more quickly.

But if it is your first program…..

You try, ask questions, get sufficiently rude answers – then go and pay a pro to do the work and, with a little kink, pay for a part of a legal photoshop license….. :-))

Michael

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 19, 2003
Xalinai wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Xalinai wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:
That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.
I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…

The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…

<grin>

Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up the next one more quickly.

But if it is your first program…..

You try, ask questions, get sufficiently rude answers – then go and pay a pro to do the work and, with a little kink, pay for a part of a legal photoshop license….. :-))

Michael

Yeah, but some unskilled users are stubborn and wish to become skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.

—- Paul J. Gans
L
l
Nov 20, 2003
In article <bpgala$osa$>,
Paul J Gans wrote:

skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.

The pro would never have become a pro by asking the trivial questions in usenet. There just is not not enough time to learn enough things if one does not do their own homework. Checking the same question from the programsยดs Help or looking it up the manual would, in the case of the trivial questions, take only a few seconds and one could continue while the task is still hot.

Donยดt take me wrong, I do not think that no-one should post to usenet to ask things. But I have seen that only a small fraction of those questions have not yet been answered. So if one really needs the info, why not get it now and not wait till tomorrow. Thatยดs part of what separates the ones that will be pros and the ones that will not; a motivation to get the info, now. Another important part is of course to get the basic education first. Going to a Photoshop class will teach so much more to a beginner than hanging out in newsgroups. Once one knows the major outlines of the subject, learning new things from books and the net will be much easier.

..lauri
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 21, 2003
l wrote:
In article <bpgala$osa$>,
Paul J Gans wrote:

skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.

The pro would never have become a pro by asking the trivial questions in usenet. There just is not not enough time to learn enough things if one does not do their own homework. Checking the same question from the programs?s Help or looking it up the manual would, in the case of the trivial questions, take only a few seconds and one could continue while the task is still hot.

Don?t take me wrong, I do not think that no-one should post to usenet to ask things. But I have seen that only a small fraction of those questions have not yet been answered. So if one really needs the info, why not get it now and not wait till tomorrow. That?s part of what separates the ones that will be pros and the ones that will not; a motivation to get the info, now. Another important part is of course to get the basic education first. Going to a Photoshop class will teach so much more to a beginner than hanging out in newsgroups. Once one knows the major outlines of the subject, learning new things from books and the net will be much easier.

.lauri

I’m sorry but I don’t agree. Almost everyone asks trivial questions in the beginning.

But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it was for non-novices should it not have been named something like

comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only

๐Ÿ™‚

There is a large change going on in society today. Instead of looking things up in a book like a manual, folks just go to the web. And what do they find? This newsgroup.

As for the rest, I’n not a pro. And there was no way I was going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I’ve been involved with computers since Knuth was a kid I did what I always did — I bought a book and read it. *Then* I bought the program. And *then* I lurked on newsgroups. I’ve been here for almost two years but did not post until a week or so ago.

But I’m well aware that most folks don’t do that. Most manuals are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?

So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.

—- Paul J. Gans
L
l
Nov 21, 2003
In article <bpjqtm$2ij$>,
Paul J Gans wrote:

But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it was for non-novices should it not have been named something like

comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only

๐Ÿ™‚

No, no, no, sorry. I certainly did not mean this or any groups should exclude newbies. Just looking at the questions most asked and answered here shows that a lot of them are, well, newbie questions. So obviously there is a market for them.

As for the rest, I’n not a pro. And there was no way I was going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I’ve been involved

Not everyone needs a Photoshop class. But those willing to become pros in just about anything, not just in Photoshop, usually do go to some sort of class about the subject. Well, at least the ones that have done so, usually find the education worth it. But all that is of course worth the money only for the ones trying to seriously learn the subject.

But I’m well aware that most folks don’t do that. Most manuals are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?

Ah, a newbie obviously asks if someone can recommend a good book that requires minimum prior knowledge of the subject from the reader. And, since the net has been populated with people for quite some time, the newbie that wants to know this now and not tomorrow asks mr Google first ๐Ÿ˜‰ If the newbie finds even the answers of mr Google impossible to read, he might then better save his money and not buy any book at all.

So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.

Not only the Photoshop users may be nasty, especially in usenet. A question that yields a lot of RTFM or Read the FAQ answers is usually one asked three times a week and there may even be active threads about the very subject in the same group. I think that not reading the possible answers before asking the question is rude. Replying in a snotty way is of course equally rude, but hey, there are just people behind the answers, not machines. Cannot expect them all to behave nice all the time.

..lauri
PJ
Paul J Gans
Nov 23, 2003
l wrote:
In article <bpjqtm$2ij$>,
Paul J Gans wrote:

But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it was for non-novices should it not have been named something like

comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only

๐Ÿ™‚

No, no, no, sorry. I certainly did not mean this or any groups should exclude newbies. Just looking at the questions most asked and answered here shows that a lot of them are, well, newbie questions. So obviously there is a market for them.

As for the rest, I’n not a pro. And there was no way I was going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I’ve been involved

Not everyone needs a Photoshop class. But those willing to become pros in just about anything, not just in Photoshop, usually do go to some sort of class about the subject. Well, at least the ones that have done so, usually find the education worth it. But all that is of course worth the money only for the ones trying to seriously learn the subject.

But I’m well aware that most folks don’t do that. Most manuals are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?

Ah, a newbie obviously asks if someone can recommend a good book that requires minimum prior knowledge of the subject from the reader. And, since the net has been populated with people for quite some time, the newbie that wants to know this now and not tomorrow asks mr Google first ๐Ÿ˜‰ If the newbie finds even the answers of mr Google impossible to read, he might then better save his money and not buy any book at all.

So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.

Not only the Photoshop users may be nasty, especially in usenet. A question that yields a lot of RTFM or Read the FAQ answers is usually one asked three times a week and there may even be active threads about the very subject in the same group. I think that not reading the possible answers before asking the question is rude. Replying in a snotty way is of course equally rude, but hey, there are just people behind the answers, not machines. Cannot expect them all to behave nice all the time.

.lauri

I agree with what you say. But I’ve been lurking here for a quite a while (over a year) and in my verys subjective opinion there are more flames and a bit less welcome for newbies then there was a year ago.

— Paul J. Gans

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups ๐Ÿ”ฅ

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections