Photoshop "CS" and OS’es

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor dont need a program like photoshop.

"The Magician" wrote in message

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

Maybe its because the newer versions are using components built in to the new os’s. or that a high(er) end pc or Mac is needed and therefore would be running the correct os anyway.
I work in a commercial printers using just XP and OS 10 and we have no complaints but a lot of our customers use OS 8 or 9 just because they don’t like change or having to learn something new, if they cant be bothered to move with the times its up to them but those who do get the better features Just my thoughts
"Frogiswrong" wrote in message

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor

dont

need a program like photoshop.

"The Magician" wrote in message

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

Chris Cox explained that PSCS needs some functionality built in to W2K/XP/OSX —-
there are some real fundamental differences between Windows 98/ME and later OS —I assume the same is true for Mac–

"The Magician" wrote in message

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

The Magician wrote:

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

Primarily because the NT-based operating systems (XP and 2000) have a more advanced feature set than the Win9x systems (which includes WinMe). More technically, the API’s in the NT-based systems give any programmer much more control over what is going on.

Put another way, in NT-based systems programs really run independently, each in their own space and cannot interfere with each other. Also there are no "resource leaks" such as bedevilled Win95 and Win98. And the operating system exerts better control over resources so that no one program should, in principle, be able to crash the entire system.

Of course, Microsoft can’t actually implement anything cleanly, so that last point isn’t quite present — even though other operating systems have had that feature for about 20 years now or more.

Nevertheless, the technology in the new systems is much further ahead of what it was, thus allowing all sorts of things that could only be done by kludges in Win9x systems.

—- Paul J. Gans

dave wrote:

Maybe its because the newer versions are using components built in to the new os’s. or that a high(er) end pc or Mac is needed and therefore would be running the correct os anyway.
I work in a commercial printers using just XP and OS 10 and we have no complaints but a lot of our customers use OS 8 or 9 just because they don’t like change or having to learn something new, if they cant be bothered to move with the times its up to them but those who do get the better features Just my thoughts

I don’t think you are wrong but that’s a bit unfair. XP is quite different technology than Win9x and OS X is totally different technology than any previous version.

New programs will increasingly make use of the technology present in the new OS’s — and thus they will not run on older ones.

—- Paul J. Gans

"Frogiswrong" wrote in message

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor

dont

need a program like photoshop.

"The Magician" wrote in message

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

Paul J Gans wrote:

Primarily because the NT-based operating systems (XP and 2000) have a more advanced feature set than the Win9x systems

So what such advanced features over the Photoshop v.7.0 are there now in the Photoshop CS that require such advanced feature set from the OS?

Absolutely nothing else but the Activation feature.

Timo Autiokari

Timo Autiokari wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Primarily because the NT-based operating systems (XP and 2000) have a more advanced feature set than the Win9x systems

So what such advanced features over the Photoshop v.7.0 are there now in the Photoshop CS that require such advanced feature set from the OS?

Absolutely nothing else but the Activation feature.

Timo Autiokari

I don’t know. I’ve not upgraded yet from Version 7. But I don’t believe that one needs XP or 2000 in order to run
activation.

I think that the things that CS uses from the NT feature set are things such as memory allocation, threading, and being able to set job priority. I do not know if CS makes use of the new Intel hyperthreading, but I’m fairly certain that Win9x doesn’t support it.

—- Paul J. Gans

In article <bpacic$1mpb05$>,
says…

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor dont need a program like photoshop.

Those who repond to posts the way you do need to put your crayons away, take a time out…and have mommy give you your Ritlin.
Run along now Dicky…

Hello All,
I also think that the fact that Win98 etc will not support more then 512MB of RAM may have something to do with it. (It will support more then 512MB of RAM – but you have to tweak windows settings to do it).

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q253912 "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed The information in this article applies to:Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition
Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition
Microsoft Windows 98
Microsoft Windows 95

SYMPTOMS
If a computer that is running any of the versions of Windows that are listed above contains more than 512 megabytes (for example, 768 megabytes) of physical memory (RAM), you may experience one or more of the following symptoms: You may be unable to open an MS-DOS session (or command prompt) while Windows is running. Attempts to do so may generate the following error message:
There is not enough memory available to run this program. http://support.microsoft.com/support/windows/topics/hardware /hwddresctr.asp

I learnt this sometime ago when I tired to load win98 onto my Graphics Workstation – (via removeable HDD). Wanted to play an old win98 only game – 2GB of RAM – and getting the message – "There is not enough memory". The Link to MS above contains all the info as well as the possible fixes.

Regards,
Davin
www.davin-photography.com

"The Magician" wrote in message

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:19:28 GMT, The Magician
wrote:

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

Because:

XP and 2000 are proper operating systems that don’t fall over XP and 2000 have proper memory handling
XP and 2000 have a secure working file system
XP and 2000 have a common driver model

And so forth.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

In article , The
Magician wrote:

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.

Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?

Windows 98, 98SE and 98ME have all been dropped as supported OSes by Microsoft. That means, amongst other things, Microsoft will not address any bugs in those OSes that are found during the development of applications like Photoshop. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are actively supported by Microsoft at this time.

Photoshop is also available in 17 languages, and one of the big advances in Windows 2000 and XP over previous Windows OSes are advances in multi-lingual text and input processing. Also of note, access to higher performance APIs for disk and memory functions. All of these are only present in Windows 2000 and later.

For these reasons, Photoshop CS requires Windows 2000 and later.

–marc

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:48:24 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor dont need a program like photoshop

nice troll.

I’ve fed my family with design out of photoshop for over ten years, and i run 98 at the office and ME at home.

Anyone that still PREFER Win98 and the worst crap ME are not the people paying for NEW Adobe Products. Win98 is not bad if you have older system or software needs, but the stability of Win2000 and XP can not be denied. Heck, even Microsoft will be pulling the plug on support for 98 and ME. There are still people who still wonder why support is not here for DOS anymore.

"The Magician" wrote in message

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:15:43 GMT, "Donald Link" wrote:

Anyone that still PREFER Win98 and the worst crap ME are not the people paying for NEW Adobe Products. Win98 is not bad if you have older system or software needs, but the stability of Win2000 and XP can not be denied. Heck, even Microsoft will be pulling the plug on support for 98 and ME. There are still people who still wonder why support is not here for DOS anymore.

They’re not supporting DOS? Whatever am I going to do? 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Maybe the fact that Photoshop is designed to run on XP means just that, not that is has 100’s of new features that only XP users can use but that the core programming takes advantage of XP to make it more powerful and to take advantage of multi processors etc.
Dave
"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:15:43 GMT, "Donald Link" wrote:

Anyone that still PREFER Win98 and the worst crap ME are not the people paying for NEW Adobe Products. Win98 is not bad if you have older system

or

software needs, but the stability of Win2000 and XP can not be denied. Heck, even Microsoft will be pulling the plug on support for 98 and ME. There are still people who still wonder why support is not here for DOS anymore.

They’re not supporting DOS? Whatever am I going to do? 😉
—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Actually your kinda wrong here. I have been using Photoshop on Mac & PC operating systems every day at work for about 5 years now and my comments were not delt out as a mindless troll. There spot on observations of evolution reguarding OS and PS versions.

"The Magician" wrote in message

In article <bpacic$1mpb05$>,
says…

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor

dont

need a program like photoshop.

Those who repond to posts the way you do need to put your crayons away, take a time out…and have mommy give you your Ritlin.
Run along now Dicky…

That you may have, but you could now do it more reliably and more efficiently with superior operating systems.

"howldog" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:48:24 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor

dont

need a program like photoshop

nice troll.

I’ve fed my family with design out of photoshop for over ten years, and i run 98 at the office and ME at home.

In article <3_vub.9119$>,
says…

Anyone that still PREFER Win98 and the worst crap ME are not the people paying for NEW Adobe Products. Win98 is not bad if you have older system or software needs, but the stability of Win2000 and XP can not be denied. Heck, even Microsoft will be pulling the plug on support for 98 and ME. There are still people who still wonder why support is not here for DOS anymore.

Jeez…yet ANOTHER horses ASS heard from.
I guess when the warranty runs out on your fridge…you run down to the appliance store and buy a new one just cuz GE won’t "support it" and the new one makes ice, huh…?
Wut a dick.

"The Magician" wrote in message

In article <3_vub.9119$>,
says…

Anyone that still PREFER Win98 and the worst crap ME are not the people paying for NEW Adobe Products. Win98 is not bad if you have older

system or

software needs, but the stability of Win2000 and XP can not be denied. Heck, even Microsoft will be pulling the plug on support for 98 and ME. There are still people who still wonder why support is not here for DOS anymore.

Jeez…yet ANOTHER horses ASS heard from.
I guess when the warranty runs out on your fridge…you run down to the appliance store and buy a new one just cuz GE won’t "support it" and the new one makes ice, huh…?
Wut a dick.

Duh! A fridge is not the same as software. Appliances are easily fixed with or without warranty. However, you are not going to install features of the newer models in the old fridge. It will still work as long as you do not try to modify it. Asking software developers to spend millions developing products for outdated operating systems that will not support the stability and features is not going to happen. Get real! You would probably have a nervous breakdown if you owned a Mac when Apple decides to abandon any software support when they come out with new hardware and operating systems. Probably the biggest problems we have in the Windows world is that Microsoft has tried to support old legacy hardware and software. Even then there comes a time when old, old just has to be abandoned. Those who do not want to upgrade to current hardware and software just are going to be left behind and they should not bitch when support for the old outdated products are abandoned, especially when the costs of upgrading are going down not up.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:43:22 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

That you may have, but you could now do it more reliably and more efficiently with superior operating systems.

my Epson printer’s postscript driver wont run in XP, we just tired to load it.

True, i can rip hi rez pdf files and use a non-postscript printer driver to print, but color is not any near as accurate. Fooled around with color settings in that driver for a few hours before i realised it was futile, diminishing returns.

for now, i have to stay in 98.

awhile back we also tried windoze2000, and Epson does make a postscript rip to run in 2000, however, we tried that, and it was buggy as hell…. wouldnt even print landscape.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:15:43 GMT, "Donald Link" wrote:

Anyone that still PREFER Win98 and the worst crap ME are not the people paying for NEW Adobe Products.

I bought a new copy of Photoshop 6 when it came out.

7, no, yer right, i havent bought that yet…. but not because of the operating system.

"Frogiswrong" wrote in message

those that like 98 or ME over XP dont know whats going on and therefor

dont

need a program like photoshop.

I’m a commercial photographer and went digital four years ago, so the computer and graphics apps have been important to the business since before that time. I used Win98SE for years and only upgraded to XP Pro last June. It ran every piece of hardware and graphics prog I threw at it without problems, including PS7. Those who have trouble with it are not mindful of resource limitations, which are relatively easy to work around, and don’t keep their systems lean by cleaning the registry and defragging regularly. It is a good and stable OS, though no up to XP in seamless operation and features, and a knowledgeable user can run most apps with it.

The move by Adobe to eliminate Win9x/ME was inevitable and a trend that will continue, I’m afraid.

On 2003-11-18, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:19:28 GMT, The Magician
wrote:

I noticed that Adobe made the new Photoshop "CS" only usable with either Win 2000 or XP.
(yeah…"creative suite"…WHAT "suite"?) Quark did a similar move with their new program.
Why would they want to cut off a whole slew of users who don’t use those particular operating systems?
I know of a load of artists who don’t like XP or 2000, and are holding out to see what the next OS brings, and even some who PREFER Win 98 and ME.
Why did Adobe block out a large consumer market with this "required operating system" thing?
The Magician

Because:

XP and 2000 are proper operating systems that don’t fall over XP and 2000 have proper memory handling
XP and 2000 have a secure working file system
XP and 2000 have a common driver model

And so forth.

—

XP isn’t that stable….on my desktop with 768 meg of ram, xp would occassionally change the background color from grey to m$ blue. Sometimes xp would change the desktop preference from "windows classic" back to the xp default look so that xp would use up more resources.

I get extremely annoyed every couple of months when i have to reconfigure the xp desktop look to "classic" and redo the colors back to what I had configured in the 1st place.

Found recently another irritation is that internet access stuff is placed into the hidden IE folder even if IE was not set as the default browser and IE is never used and not on the desktop or menu.

Have disabled the Remote Access Conection but the m$ media player still "calls" home to check for new updates; the media player shouldn’t be doing that without first asking when the Remote Access Connection is disabled.

"a user" wrote in message

On 2003-11-18, Hecate wrote:

XP isn’t that stable….on my desktop with 768 meg of ram, xp would occassionally change the background color from grey to m$ blue. Sometimes xp would change the desktop preference from "windows classic" back to the xp default look so that xp would use up more resources. I get extremely annoyed every couple of months when i have to reconfigure the xp desktop look to "classic" and redo the colors back to what I had configured in the 1st place.

I have three systems running XP Pro (see list below) and I haven’t experienced any of these issues. I also run XP in "classic" mode, but haven’t had the OS change back on its own.

As for stability, I have had no crashes or BSOD’s since installed in June, and this computer is heavily used every day. The only glitch I see is that when I customize my Control Panel window it reverts to the default size and configuration two or three days later–not the next boot cycle or next day. I can’t quit figure this one out.

Gigabyte GA-8KNXP v1.0 mobo w/ P4 2.8c and 2gb RAM
Sony VAIO w/ P4 1.6 and 512mb RAM
Abit BE6-II v2.0 mobo w/ PIII-1000E and 512mb RAM

"Bob Davis" wrote:

"a user" wrote in message

On 2003-11-18, Hecate wrote:

XP isn’t that stable….on my desktop with 768 meg of ram, xp would occassionally change the background color from grey to m$ blue. Sometimes xp would change the desktop preference from "windows classic" back to the xp default look so that xp would use up more resources. I get extremely annoyed every couple of months when i have to reconfigure the xp desktop look to "classic" and redo the colors back to what I had configured in the 1st place.

I have three systems running XP Pro (see list below) and I haven’t experienced any of these issues. I also run XP in "classic" mode, but haven’t had the OS change back on its own.

As for stability, I have had no crashes or BSOD’s since installed in June, and this computer is heavily used every day. The only glitch I see is that when I customize my Control Panel window it reverts to the default size and configuration two or three days later–not the next boot cycle or next day. I can’t quit figure this one out.

Gigabyte GA-8KNXP v1.0 mobo w/ P4 2.8c and 2gb RAM
Sony VAIO w/ P4 1.6 and 512mb RAM
Abit BE6-II v2.0 mobo w/ PIII-1000E and 512mb RAM

I too have 2 WinXP Pro. systems running well with no crashing problem. My system mostly use for multimedia (very heavy use) and the other system grandkids use for internet, school.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:59:34 GMT, a user wrote:

—

XP isn’t that stable….on my desktop with 768 meg of ram, xp would occassionally change the background color from grey to m$ blue. Sometimes xp would change the desktop preference from "windows classic" back to the xp default look so that xp would use up more resources.

The first sounds more like a video driver problem than anything else.

The second, well, I haven’t heard anyone else say that the desktop changes whether they run classic or XP look and feel (I run XP look and feel and it has no impact whatever on my resources).

<snip>

Found recently another irritation is that internet access stuff is placed into the hidden IE folder even if IE was not set as the default browser and IE is never used and not on the desktop or menu.

Have disabled the Remote Access Conection but the m$ media player still "calls" home to check for new updates; the media player shouldn’t be doing that without first asking when the Remote Access Connection is disabled.

You obviously haven’t read the information concerning WMP. All you do is go in the preferences and turn it off. And then it doesn’t attempt to access the internet unless it requires a codec. And any good firewall will block that if you don’t want it to search for a codec for you.

I’m amazed at the problems you’re having as it’s completely stable for me, as was Win2k. I would wonder whether your video drivers were up to date and whether your memory is fully functioning.

As I say above, colour changes of the sort you mention are more likely to be the video card anyway.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Another thought is that WinXP reverts back one boot sequence if you crash or power down because of a problem. You may be re-incarnating an earlier boot because of problems with a program.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:34:55 GMT, "mdavis"
wrote:

Another thought is that WinXP reverts back one boot sequence if you crash or power down because of a problem. You may be re-incarnating an earlier boot because of problems with a program.

Good point 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:59:34 GMT, a user wrote:

—

XP isn’t that stable….on my desktop with 768 meg of ram, xp would occassionally change the background color from grey to m$ blue. Sometimes xp would change the desktop preference from "windows classic" back to the xp default look so that xp would use up more resources.

The first sounds more like a video driver problem than anything else.

The second, well, I haven’t heard anyone else say that the desktop changes whether they run classic or XP look and feel (I run XP look and feel and it has no impact whatever on my resources).

<snip>

Found recently another irritation is that internet access stuff is placed into the hidden IE folder even if IE was not set as the default browser and IE is never used and not on the desktop or menu.

Have disabled the Remote Access Conection but the m$ media player still "calls" home to check for new updates; the media player shouldn’t be doing that without first asking when the Remote Access Connection is disabled.

You obviously haven’t read the information concerning WMP. All you do is go in the preferences and turn it off. And then it doesn’t attempt to access the internet unless it requires a codec. And any good firewall will block that if you don’t want it to search for a codec for you.

I’m amazed at the problems you’re having as it’s completely stable for me, as was Win2k. I would wonder whether your video drivers were up to date and whether your memory is fully functioning.

As I say above, colour changes of the sort you mention are more likely to be the video card anyway.

Could be, but I too have the color change thingie. It doesn’t bother me. Happens about once a month. The screen comes up with the background a Microsoft blue. Next boot it is back to the "normal" color.

I doubt it is a driver problem as it happens on both of my Windows machines and they are very different hardware but both run XP. One runs the Dell version of XP, the other was a full install from a store-bought copy. And I have stories to tell folks who think installing XP from scratch is "easy"…

— Paul J. Gans

PS: The colors in applications were never changed. Only the background on the screen.

"howldog" wrote in message

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:43:22 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

That you may have, but you could now do it more reliably and more efficiently with superior operating systems.

my Epson printer’s postscript driver wont run in XP, we just tired to load it.

Get a NEW driver

True, i can rip hi rez pdf files and use a non-postscript printer driver to print, but color is not any near as accurate. Fooled around with color settings in that driver for a few hours before i realised it was futile, diminishing returns.

HUH????

for now, i have to stay in 98.

WHY?

awhile back we also tried windoze2000, and Epson does make a postscript rip to run in 2000, however, we tried that, and it was buggy as hell…. wouldnt even print landscape.

So Epson is holding you back?

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:02:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

As I say above, colour changes of the sort you mention are more likely to be the video card anyway.

Could be, but I too have the color change thingie. It doesn’t bother me. Happens about once a month. The screen comes up with the background a Microsoft blue. Next boot it is back to the "normal" color.

I doubt it is a driver problem as it happens on both of my Windows machines and they are very different hardware but both run XP. One runs the Dell version of XP, the other was a full install from a store-bought copy. And I have stories to tell folks who think installing XP from scratch is "easy"…

— Paul J. Gans

PS: The colors in applications were never changed. Only the background on the screen.

Interesting. That’s 2 people now. I wonder if there are any more (haven’t heard this on any of the OS forums..).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:59:04 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

my Epson printer’s postscript driver wont run in XP, we just tired to load it.

Get a NEW driver

yer just full of all kinds of useful advice arent you.

awhile back we also tried windoze2000, and Epson does make a postscript rip to run in 2000, however, we tried that, and it was buggy as hell…. wouldnt even print landscape.

So Epson is holding you back?

yep. pretty much. people i am currently working for/with wont spring for another printer.

98 isnt that bad, actually….

hey look dont get me wrong, im in a similar boat. I spend all day using $15,000 set up, a (crappy old) Mac with os 8.6 and photoshop 6. cant upgrade shit, due to a crap scanner. I come home to a $2,000 set up, top line PC, win XP & photoshop CS.
If anyone can give grief about the pros and cons of using rancid, stinking, outdated rubbish its me.

"howldog" wrote in message

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:59:04 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

my Epson printer’s postscript driver wont run in XP, we just tired to load it.

Get a NEW driver

yer just full of all kinds of useful advice arent you.

awhile back we also tried windoze2000, and Epson does make a postscript rip to run in 2000, however, we tried that, and it was buggy as hell…. wouldnt even print landscape.

So Epson is holding you back?

yep. pretty much. people i am currently working for/with wont spring for another printer.

98 isnt that bad, actually….