Apologists for Activation might want to read this

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis

\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

In article ,
says...

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

I'm sorry, but I don't catch the connection between Adobe's "activation" and a server, storing personal data, locking up. They seem to be two different things. While the server's problem (and obviously the problem that that causes for users) is not minor, how does this apply to Adobe?

Just curious as to what I am missing here,
Hunt

In article , Toby
Thain wrote:

Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

We're waiting for you to talk about activation ....

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:16:24 -0400, Steve Moody
wrote:

In article , Toby
Thain wrote:

Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

We're waiting for you to talk about activation ....

I think what he's trying to suggest is this:

You need to activate your software. You have a job for a client due. You can't, because the server won't let you. Of course, you then go to your older version of Illy/PS, whatever and use that...

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Apologists for whining: Get a life

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

Natural selection, hard at work. Morons who patronize these copy protection schemes deserve exactly what they get. Or don't get as the case may be.

Just remember, TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY.

Rick

(Hunt) wrote in message news:...

In article ,
says...

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

...

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

I'm sorry, but I don't catch the connection between Adobe's "activation" and a server, storing personal data, locking up. They seem to be two different things. While the server's problem (and obviously the problem that that causes for users) is not minor, how does this apply to Adobe?

In both cases you are putting your productivity (ability to use the software) in the hands of a second party. Not only are you subject to their hardware and software failures, you are also subject to their licensing caprices and solvency. These are the new licensing caveat that "Activation" brings. I would suggest "DeActivation" is more accurate & recommend a healthy scepticism concerning claims that "it is better for the customer"!

Some thoughts raised:
* Adobe customers should pray their "activation" servers run Linux, and not whatever M$ runs;
* In this situation, a pirate user (with a cracked copy) would be far more productive;
* A competing product without "Activation" might honestly use the slogan, "our software isn't crippled".

Just curious as to what I am missing here,

I believe the parallels are obvious.

--Toby

FREE Photoshop and Illustrator plugins:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

Hunt

"Larry" ...

Apologists for whining: Get a life

So you won't whine when you're bitten by "De"Activation?

T

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days. ...
The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

ahh I think I am beginning to grasp this thread. Please forgive me for being a little bit slow on the uptake.

I think I may have a solution of sorts and it runs like this (assuming Activation has been completed is good and thorough and valid)

a sudden DE-activation is encountered = loss of operational software

If the de-activation is improper then IMHO there is a case to be made for compensation along the lines of who authorised the de-activation, what notice was given or did it just happen without prior notice, what losses were sustained or generated by sudden de-activation ... I could go on and I am sure you get the picture

This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of others using alternative supply sources

It is also IMHO another case of hitting those one knows rather than those one does not know

But there again I may be missing the point totally and completely therefore reserve the right to be wrong on this one

Arts

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"Larry" wrote in message

news:<WkCOc.3128$>...

Apologists for whining: Get a life

So you won't whine when you're bitten by "De"Activation?
T

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days. ...
The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

"Arty Phacting" ...

ahh I think I am beginning to grasp this thread. Please forgive me for being a little bit slow on the uptake.

I think I may have a solution of sorts and it runs like this (assuming Activation has been completed is good and thorough and valid)
a sudden DE-activation is encountered = loss of operational software
If the de-activation is improper then IMHO there is a case to be made for compensation along the lines of who authorised the de-activation, what notice was given or did it just happen without prior notice, what losses were sustained or generated by sudden de-activation ... I could go on and I am sure you get the picture

Yes. It opens new opportunities for accidental or intentional revocation, enforced by technological measures, that do not exist with the traditional license. Hecate has a nice angle on it: how do you explain to YOUR creditors - the utility company, the finance company - that you can't pay your bills because your software was somehow DeActivated? Who ya gonna call? Compensation seems unlikely and the fine print in your new-look Adobe license probably disclaims it.

It is true that one's livelihood is already somewhat dependent on
e.g., the ISP, the electricity company, but do we really need to add
capricious and self-interested software companies to that list? What's in it for us?

This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of others using alternative supply sources

Anti-piracy is only the rationalisation, and a demonstrably worthless one. The real reasons have more to do with forcibly converting "purchasers" into "subscribers", to better control the bottom line.

It is also IMHO another case of hitting those one knows rather than those one does not know

But there again I may be missing the point totally and completely therefore reserve the right to be wrong on this one

Best to expect flames either way...

T

Arts

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"Larry" wrote in message

news:<WkCOc.3128$>...

Apologists for whining: Get a life

So you won't whine when you're bitten by "De"Activation?
T

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days. ...
The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

"Rick" ...

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

Natural selection, hard at work. Morons who patronize these copy protection schemes deserve exactly what they get. Or don't get as the case may be.

The M$ Money situation may not involve copy protection per se, but it is an example of total reliance on systems you don't control and can't fix or influence. You're at their mercy. It's no coincidence that Money is basically a subscription product. That's the way they are herding us, folks - yet another stark parallel to Adobe's "activation".

But why, of all things, would you trust your confidential financial data to a faceless outside service* - M$ no less?? I feel uncomfortable enough putting such important data on a computer at all - let alone a computer in another state or country accessible only through an evidently fragile conduit. Seems a very imprudent idea, as these people are finding out the hard way...

We can chuckle at the plight of M$ Money subscribers today. But companies like Adobe could put us in the same position tomorrow. What happens when you can't run the software that is your livelihood?

--Toby

*Yes, I use PayPal, but my business certainly doesn't depend on it.

Just remember, TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY.

Rick

In message ,
(Toby Thain) wrote:

We can chuckle at the plight of M$ Money subscribers today. But companies like Adobe could put us in the same position tomorrow. What happens when you can't run the software that is your livelihood?

Photoshop is not my livelyhood, just part of a hobby, but I am on the verge of not being able to use it. It has reported twice already that the hardware has changed, and needs to be reactivated. There was no change of hardware, whatsoever. I believe that a conflict with the disk-scan portion of AVG antivirus (which crashed the system a couple of times) led to the apparent change of hardware. I have disable the disk scan for about three months, and the false hardware change has not happened again. None of the other programs that have activation detected a change of hardware.

The next time, I'm going to have to make a phone call, and it's probably going to be when no one is answering the phone.

I'm not against companies preventing unlicensed usage, but they really need to find a better way. Some of the schemes used in the past have been deadly to system performance and stability. Software vendors seem to believe that you buy a computer to run their software, and the rest of the system does not matter.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I think this has less to do with activation and more to do with people being so stupid that they store the financial information online and with Microsoft no less. They can't even secure IE what in the hell makes anyone think they could keep your financial information secure, safe and available at all times.

Geeze, where the hell has common sense went?

John

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

In article ,
(Toby Thain) wrote:

Yes. It opens new opportunities for accidental or intentional revocation, enforced by technological measures, that do not exist with the traditional license. Hecate has a nice angle on it: how do you explain to YOUR creditors - the utility company, the finance company - that you can't pay your bills because your software was somehow DeActivated? Who ya gonna call? Compensation seems unlikely and the fine print in your new-look Adobe license probably disclaims it.
It is true that one's livelihood is already somewhat dependent on
e.g., the ISP, the electricity company, but do we really need to add
capricious and self-interested software companies to that list? What's in it for us?

These are IMHO _very_ wise words -- and are certainly going to form the core of my future response to any activation/deactivation schemes.

This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of others using alternative supply sources

Anti-piracy is only the rationalisation, and a demonstrably worthless one. The real reasons have more to do with forcibly converting "purchasers" into "subscribers", to better control the bottom line.

Equally well put.

In article ,
says...

(Hunt) wrote in message news:

....

In article ,
says...

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

...

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

I'm sorry, but I don't catch the connection between Adobe's "activation"

and a

server, storing personal data, locking up. They seem to be two different things. While the server's problem (and obviously the problem that that

causes

for users) is not minor, how does this apply to Adobe?

In both cases you are putting your productivity (ability to use the software) in the hands of a second party. Not only are you subject to their hardware and software failures, you are also subject to their licensing caprices and solvency. These are the new licensing caveat that "Activation" brings. I would suggest "DeActivation" is more accurate & recommend a healthy scepticism concerning claims that "it is better for the customer"!

Some thoughts raised:
* Adobe customers should pray their "activation" servers run Linux, and not whatever M$ runs;
* In this situation, a pirate user (with a cracked copy) would be far more productive;
* A competing product without "Activation" might honestly use the slogan, "our software isn't crippled".

Just curious as to what I am missing here,

I believe the parallels are obvious.

--Toby

FREE Photoshop and Illustrator plugins:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

Hunt

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run PS on my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some third- party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI and the rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my case, at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?

Hunt

In article ,
says...

"Rick"

....

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

Natural selection, hard at work. Morons who patronize these copy protection schemes deserve exactly what they get. Or don't get as the case may be.

The M$ Money situation may not involve copy protection per se, but it is an example of total reliance on systems you don't control and can't fix or influence. You're at their mercy. It's no coincidence that Money is basically a subscription product. That's the way they are herding us, folks - yet another stark parallel to Adobe's "activation".

But why, of all things, would you trust your confidential financial data to a faceless outside service* - M$ no less?? I feel uncomfortable enough putting such important data on a computer at all - let alone a computer in another state or country accessible only through an evidently fragile conduit. Seems a very imprudent idea, as these people are finding out the hard way...

We can chuckle at the plight of M$ Money subscribers today. But companies like Adobe could put us in the same position tomorrow. What happens when you can't run the software that is your livelihood?
--Toby

*Yes, I use PayPal, but my business certainly doesn't depend on it.

Just remember, TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY.

Rick

In the case of M$, the stated goal for XP was to have the OS, all applications, and all data stored on servers in Redmond, WA (or where ever the decided location was to have been), and then each day, every user WOULD phone home to upload all OS, apps, and data onto smart terminals. THEN one would truly be at the mercy of M$ and the various weak links in the connection. That idea was replaced with a more traditional OS, but I doubt that it is dead.

Imagine what would happen to the world, if the plan had been implemented, most systems had gone to it, and Bill Gates were to wake up in a foul mood, deciding that unless GB were to bomb Paris, no one in the world could start their computers, or gain access to any of their data.

Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still eludes me. Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

Hunt

"Hunt" wrote in message

Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still eludes me. Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

If you research Macrovision's SafeCast copy protection
(which is what PS CS uses), you'll discover the software has four licensing options, one of which is FORCED
SUBSCRIPTION. In other words, at any point Adobe
could decide to move from activation to subscription, and the software necessary to enforce this licensing has already been installed on their customers' systems.

As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step on a much longer ladder. Steve Ballmer and execs of other major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
subscription fees.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Rick

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

"Rick" wrote in message

"Hunt" wrote in message

Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still

eludes me.

Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

If you research Macrovision's SafeCast copy protection
(which is what PS CS uses), you'll discover the software has four licensing options, one of which is FORCED
SUBSCRIPTION. In other words, at any point Adobe
could decide to move from activation to subscription, and the software necessary to enforce this licensing has already been installed on their customers' systems.

As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step on a much longer ladder. Steve Ballmer and execs of other major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
subscription fees.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Rick

Hi Rick

I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers tend to vote with their spondoolies

Megabucks for web actvated software that can trip out on a whim or a moments notice OR cracked software that bypasses all of that at 10% of retail price?
Which will win in the "real world"?

Open source software is the future of computing. Adobe, Microsoft et al are busy greeding themselves out of existence. Their business model belongs to the last century.

Rick

Adobe could have instantly created a large number of "apologists for activation" had they shared some of the supposed financial benefits of activation by dropping the price.

They did not.
--

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

Hmmm - have the software houses got it all wrong? Maybe all right?

Where I live it seems cracked & copied software is easier (I'll write that again: easier) to obtain than the legit stuff (and at 10% of the price?). Conclusion: software houses are loosing out on the high street or e-high street

If software user numbers are increasing but registered users not increasing at the same rate - well there is an obvious widening gap in how software houses generate income

I am beginning to wonder if the practices used are actually translating as encouragement?

For example
wrote in message

A perplexed Arty

"AES/newspost" wrote in message

In article ,
(Toby Thain) wrote:

Yes. It opens new opportunities for accidental or intentional revocation, enforced by technological measures, that do not exist with the traditional license. Hecate has a nice angle on it: how do you explain to YOUR creditors - the utility company, the finance company - that you can't pay your bills because your software was somehow DeActivated? Who ya gonna call? Compensation seems unlikely and the fine print in your new-look Adobe license probably disclaims it.
It is true that one's livelihood is already somewhat dependent on
e.g., the ISP, the electricity company, but do we really need to add
capricious and self-interested software companies to that list? What's in it for us?

These are IMHO _very_ wise words -- and are certainly going to form the core of my future response to any activation/deactivation schemes.

This IMHO is another case of flogging the legit customers because of

others

using alternative supply sources

Anti-piracy is only the rationalisation, and a demonstrably worthless one. The real reasons have more to do with forcibly converting "purchasers" into "subscribers", to better control the bottom line.

Equally well put.

Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free. Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just to avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas. Now Quark's cockamamie authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to Indy CS rather than QXP 6. It's just too obtrusive for me, given that I don't want nor need most of the new features. We bought our copies of QXP 4 when it came out, and soon after lost several of the install floppies and CDs due to sloppy IT management from young punks who never bothered to register or keep track of the disks (we do have 8 nice boxes with various info and manuals left intact). But that's not a hassle, 'cuz when I build a new machine to replace an old one, I can just copy the QXP folder from anyone else's machine and run it. We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it. I know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't worth the trouble...

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run

PS on

my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some

third-

party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI and

the

rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my

case,

at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
Hunt

I'm not so sure of that. We upgraded several copies of ID to CS for $169, as well as PS and Illustrator for that price. I also bought the freakin' Creative Suite for $569. These are not outrageous prices IMO for software that could be considered essential to modern graphic design work. Far less than the cost of certain other programs and their extensions. With Photoshop and Acrobat alone, Adobe has 2 of the applications that make using a computer worthwhile and actually productive....

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Adobe could have instantly created a large number of "apologists for activation" had they shared some of the supposed financial benefits of activation by dropping the price.

They did not.
--

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

"Rick" wrote in message

"Hunt" wrote in message

Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still

eludes me.

Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

If you research Macrovision's SafeCast copy protection
(which is what PS CS uses), you'll discover the software has four licensing options, one of which is FORCED
SUBSCRIPTION. In other words, at any point Adobe
could decide to move from activation to subscription, and the software necessary to enforce this licensing has already been installed on their customers' systems.

As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step on a much longer ladder. Steve Ballmer and execs of other major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
subscription fees.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Rick

Hi Rick

I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers tend to vote with their spondoolies

Megabucks for web actvated software that can trip out on a whim or a moments notice OR cracked software that bypasses all of that at 10% of retail price?

Which will win in the "real world"?

Arts

Yeh - those are the lines I am thinking along. A realistic pragmatic approach designed to swoon consumers (please excuse the poetry) rather than alienate consumers (is this making any sense?)

There is a theory (psychology) based on the observation that some important decision makers become surrounded with "like-minded" thinkers end up going down a cul-de-sac - a road that leads to nowhere.

Basically in as polite generalities as possible: the event space of decision taking is strongly dissassociated with the event space those policies have to work in.

Are you with me or am I being far too vague?

Arts

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Adobe could have instantly created a large number of "apologists for activation" had they shared some of the supposed financial benefits of activation by dropping the price.

They did not.
--

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

From: (Hunt)

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run PS on my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some third-party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected.

I *think* his point was you would be in trouble IF your system hangs and you need to re-activate AND at that point in time the Adobe activation link is fouled up like the Microsoft Money server. So basically two long-shots have to come in simultaneously.

"Arty Phacting" ...

"Rick" wrote in message

...
As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step on a much longer ladder. Steve Ballmer and execs of other major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
subscription fees.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Rick

Hi Rick

I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers tend to vote with their spondoolies

That is the power that we have, and we *must* exercise it if we don't like what's planned for us.

The monopolies can still be toppled by a cheaper and better competitor; Linux proves it. Adobe's "Linux" may not yet have appeared, but their anti-customer practices are making conditions ripe for it.

--Toby

Megabucks for web actvated software that can trip out on a whim or a moments notice OR cracked software that bypasses all of that at 10% of retail price?
Which will win in the "real world"?

Arts

"Dennis Gordon" ...

Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

OK, now imagine that it fails, and you cannot get it to activate. Does that prospect make you sweat? (Seem unlikely? Ask a M$ Money user.)

Sure, you'd go back to Photoshop 7 -- in which case, why did you blow the money on the "Activated" product in the first place?

Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just to avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas.

It also increases the motivation for cracking and distributing cracks, which means there are more of them, and they are more easily available. Many people have remarked upon this side-effect of Adobe's supposedly-unpiratable Activated products. (Similar effects are observed with supposedly-unpiratable Windoze XP.)

Now Quark's cockamamie
authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to Indy CS rather than QXP 6. ... We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it. I know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't worth the trouble...

The same kind of arrogance at Quark that sank XPress (former market leader) is evidently rife at Adobe. Our money built those corporations and when our patronage is withdrawn, they will starve.

--Toby

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run

PS on

my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some

third-

party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI and

the

rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my

case,

at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
Hunt

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:08:23 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:16:24 -0400, Steve Moody
wrote:

In article , Toby
Thain wrote:

Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.

We're waiting for you to talk about activation ....

eh, I'm waiting for someone to explain what kind of moron puts their "personal finance files" on any server they dont own or control, especially servers owned by microsoft....

Dennis Gordon wrote:

I'm not so sure of that. We upgraded several copies of ID to CS for $169, as well as PS and Illustrator for that price. I also bought the freakin' Creative Suite for $569. These are not outrageous prices IMO for software that could be considered essential to modern graphic design work. Far less than the cost of certain other programs and their extensions. With Photoshop and Acrobat alone, Adobe has 2 of the applications that make using a computer worthwhile and actually productive....

That is fine for you. Adobe upgrade offers here are in the 350-400 EURO range and the Creative Suite is offerred for something beyond the 2000 Euro limit. And that with 1 US$ = 0.86 Euro.

If the activation process is restarted when one connects an external harddisk to a notebook (or several different ones) or if you use different types of docking station with the same notebook, this would be a risk too high for me to upgrade - and as I can not try, I won't.

Michael

Toby Thain wrote:

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message
news:<DNVOc.652$>...

"Rick" wrote in message

...
As with Microsoft's WPA, Adobe's activation is just one step on a much longer ladder. Steve Ballmer and execs of other major software developers such as Adobe and Symantec
envision a world where no one can run Microsoft Word or
Photoshop or Norton without paying monthly or annual
subscription fees.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Rick

Hi Rick

I think that may be the bottom line from a single perspective but consumers tend to vote with their spondoolies

That is the power that we have, and we must exercise it if we don't like what's planned for us.

The monopolies can still be toppled by a cheaper and better competitor; Linux proves it. Adobe's "Linux" may not yet have appeared, but their anti-customer practices are making conditions ripe for it.

For the typical consumer who doesn't need the few "killer" functions (spot colors, CMYK editing, extra large files beyond Windows memory limits) there are enough alternatives.

But people still prefer Mercedes Benz over Lexus or the latest Kia models....

Michael

(Hunt) wrote in message news:...

...
In the case of M$, the stated goal for XP was to have the OS, all applications, and all data stored on servers ... That
idea was replaced with a more traditional OS, but I doubt that it is dead.
Imagine what would happen to the world, if the plan had been implemented, most systems had gone to it, and Bill Gates were to wake up in a foul mood, deciding that unless GB were to bomb Paris, no one in the world could start their computers, or gain access to any of their data.

That's right: it's not so much about controlling access to the applications; it's about controlling access to your data. This is one of the most important reasons why Activation/Subscription models are not acceptable. You *own* your data. I for one don't want Adobe or M$ or anyone between me and my data.

So not only might you one day be prevented from running, e.g. InDesign CS, but because the data format is proprietary *and deliberately not backward compatible*, you cannot even roll back to an earlier version of InDesign (or Photoshop, or whatever), just to access your own files.

Prospective Adobe (and M$) purchasers might contemplate that, before they write the cheque: what if one morning DeActivation turns your new G5 into a very expensive paperweight? (And to business users: what if your entire production dept is DeActivated one morning?)

M$ eventually posted a workaround for the recent Money problem ( http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1324234 ), but I don't see any mention of compensation.

--Toby

Now that is scary. The tie to the activation process, though, still eludes me. Are you saying that it is step one, or many?

Hunt

In message <bmVOc.2658$>,
"Dennis Gordon" wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

How many times have you done that? Does it use up your chances to activate without a phone call? I have had it happen exactly twice, after AVG antivirus disk scan crashed the system. I am thinking that the next time will require a phone call.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well, but I'm not sure). Each time it's been reactivated without pain or questions. I think it takes aspects of your hardware configuration into account. If the machine hasn't been modified, I don't think there's a limit to how many times you can activate... but I could be wrong...

wrote in message

In message <bmVOc.2658$>,
"Dennis Gordon" wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a

hard

crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

How many times have you done that? Does it use up your chances to activate without a phone call? I have had it happen exactly twice, after AVG antivirus disk scan crashed the system. I am thinking that the next time will require a phone call.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

In article ,
Straggler wrote:

eh, I'm waiting for someone to explain what kind of moron puts their "personal finance files" on any server they dont own or control, especially servers owned by microsoft....

In fact, I had a nasty experience once in which a lot of data I had accumulated over several years was on my own computer OK -- but stored in an proprietary and undocumented application-specific format, with no provision in the application to export all this accumulated data into some neutral or generic format which I decided to switch to a different application.

Learned about computers and data storage from that . . .

In article ,
wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.

In message <vX7Pc.2678$>,
"Dennis Gordon" wrote:

I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,

Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless? I started using AVG because I heard that it didn't mess the system up like Symantec or McAffee. I only use the background scan of AVG now; the scheduled late-night disk scans were what was crashing the system, apparently. I made the connection when I looked through the system alert logs and found the last entries on the night of the crash were a few minutes after the disk scan started.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

In message ,
AES/newspost wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.

JPS didn't write anything you quoted!

That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote something that I did not.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

How's about this?

"Dear Adobe

Please continue in your time setting trend to offer customers the best digital image processing, compilation and creative arts packages available to both commercial and domestic (home) users.

The upward trend in digital camera ownership (a 40% increase predicted in the next 12 months) may possibly bring a whole new raft of prospective new users.

Rather than excel in bulding limitations into your creative software suites please focus research and development in building, creating and maintaining demand for a unique range of products.

I appreciate that being a market leader may reduce the competitive frictions about what to do next. Please take all those wonderful presentations from "secure software" companies with a hefty pinch of salt certainly not to compromise the functionality of the programs you create."

Basically summarises all of this thread but uses a different perspective or flavour.

<waiting for the flaming to start?>

Arts

"John Doe" wrote in message

I think this has less to do with activation and more to do with people

being

so stupid that they store the financial information online and with Microsoft no less. They can't even secure IE what in the hell makes anyone think they could keep your financial information secure, safe and

available

at all times.

Geeze, where the hell has common sense went?

John

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

In article ,
wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a hard
crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.

JPS didn't write anything you quoted!

That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote something that I did not.

My apologies. In replying to posts I try to make my replies as compact as possible by trimming the previous postings down to the essential part of what I'm replying to, and I obviously messed up in coping with the multiple layers of quotation indicators here. Will attempt to do better in the future.

I've had varied results with AVG. While I much prefer it to Symantec/Nortons, and have installed it on 20 machines at work, I have found that it often crashes my machine at home when running automatically (XP Pro). I still use it, but I hear what you're saying....

wrote in message

In message <vX7Pc.2678$>,
"Dennis Gordon" wrote:

I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as

well,

Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless? I started using AVG because I heard that it didn't mess the system up like Symantec or McAffee. I only use the background scan of AVG now; the scheduled late-night disk scans were what was crashing the system, apparently. I made the connection when I looked through the system alert logs and found the last entries on the night of the crash were a few minutes after the disk scan started.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Hey, that makes me the "naive" one. Where exactly has Adobe's activation system (specifically PShop, since it's the only commonly used Adobe app that requires it) been cited for "...the unending string of computer foulups..."? When I said that Adobe's method is "benign", I meant in comparison to something like QXP or the MS Money server woes that sparked this discussion. Just because some people screw up their machines doesn't automatically mean that it's a specific software's fault. Almost daily, I'm asked to look at someone's machine which has stopped working, and invariably it's a box that hasn't been maintained, defragged, full of spyware and virus definitions from 2002. I've had to reactivate my Photoshop 3 times. Usually as a result of a hard crash or reboot caused by my penchant for keeping too many things open on my machine until it just runs out of gas. Something gets weird in some config file, I open PShop and it asks me to activate - I click OK and 3 seconds later I'm back in business. I've never lost productivity due to an Adobe product. Yes, they're a greedy filthy pack of techno-yuppies, trying to squeeze the money out of me... and BTW, they make the products that are absolutely essential for me to do my job. If they made overpriced junk it would be a different story. I am not "naively trusting"... I simply judge from my own experience in maintaining 9 workstations in an art dept. I can sympathize with those who've had nightmarish experiences, but I would bet that those who do represent a very small percentage of users, and if you factor out the stupid and ignorant, you're left with even fewer sad souls whose problems can be directly traced back to Adobe...

"AES/newspost" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS

after a

hard
crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and

is

hassle-free.

I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of computer foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks for a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as this.

JPS didn't write anything you quoted!

That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote something that I did not.

My apologies. In replying to posts I try to make my replies as compact as possible by trimming the previous postings down to the essential part of what I'm replying to, and I obviously messed up in coping with the multiple layers of quotation indicators here. Will attempt to do better in the future.

Hmm - I thought that ... well anyway, here's another tuppen'orth:

I think if I was approached by a "secure software" service provider (LOL = dream on!) the first things I'd like to see would be:

hire and fire list since the company started
listing of all freelancers that worked there
copy of policy on using freelance services
(get the picture?)

I have an awful feeling that Adobe's inhouse security is probably much higher than any other organisation or service provider out there

Arts

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

How's about this?

"Dear Adobe

Please continue in your time setting trend to offer customers the best digital image processing, compilation and creative arts packages available to both commercial and domestic (home) users.

The upward trend in digital camera ownership (a 40% increase predicted in the next 12 months) may possibly bring a whole new raft of prospective new users.

Rather than excel in bulding limitations into your creative software

suites

please focus research and development in building, creating and

maintaining

demand for a unique range of products.

I appreciate that being a market leader may reduce the competitive

frictions

about what to do next. Please take all those wonderful presentations from "secure software" companies with a hefty pinch of salt certainly not to compromise the functionality of the programs you create."
Basically summarises all of this thread but uses a different perspective

or

flavour.

<waiting for the flaming to start?>

Arts

"John Doe" wrote in message

I think this has less to do with activation and more to do with people

being

so stupid that they store the financial information online and with Microsoft no less. They can't even secure IE what in the hell makes

anyone

think they could keep your financial information secure, safe and

available

at all times.

Geeze, where the hell has common sense went?

John

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

Hi Dennis - I think this thread started from a "what if" scenario and the mild panic it induced in commercial users

Basically what if the MS Money scenario ever happened to commercial users...

Arts

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

Hey, that makes me the "naive" one. Where exactly has Adobe's activation system (specifically PShop, since it's the only commonly used Adobe app

that

requires it) been cited for "...the unending string of computer

foulups..."?

When I said that Adobe's method is "benign", I meant in comparison to something like QXP or the MS Money server woes that sparked this

discussion.

Just because some people screw up their machines doesn't automatically

mean

that it's a specific software's fault. Almost daily, I'm asked to look at someone's machine which has stopped working, and invariably it's a box

that

hasn't been maintained, defragged, full of spyware and virus definitions from 2002. I've had to reactivate my Photoshop 3 times. Usually as a

result

of a hard crash or reboot caused by my penchant for keeping too many

things

open on my machine until it just runs out of gas. Something gets weird in some config file, I open PShop and it asks me to activate - I click OK and

3

seconds later I'm back in business. I've never lost productivity due to an Adobe product. Yes, they're a greedy filthy pack of techno-yuppies, trying to squeeze the money out of me... and BTW, they make the products that are absolutely essential for me to do my job. If they made overpriced junk it would be a different story. I am not "naively trusting"... I simply judge from my own experience in maintaining 9 workstations in an art dept. I can sympathize with those who've had nightmarish experiences, but I would bet that those who do represent a very small percentage of users, and if you factor out the stupid and ignorant, you're left with even fewer sad souls whose problems can be directly traced back to Adobe...

"AES/newspost" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

Adobe's activation system is pretty
benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS

after a

hard
crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second

and

is

hassle-free.

I don't believe anyone who has followed the unending string of

computer

foulups documented in the (superbly) moderated newsgroup comp.risks

for

a year or two could write something as (IMHO) naively trusting as

this.

JPS didn't write anything you quoted!

That's very irresponsible on your part; you are implying that I wrote something that I did not.

My apologies. In replying to posts I try to make my replies as compact as possible by trimming the previous postings down to the essential part of what I'm replying to, and I obviously messed up in coping with the multiple layers of quotation indicators here. Will attempt to do better in the future.

In article ,
comedy says...

From: (Hunt)

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run PS on my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some third-party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected.

I *think* his point was you would be in trouble IF your system hangs and you need to re-activate AND at that point in time the Adobe activation link is fouled up like the Microsoft Money server. So basically two long-shots have

to

come in simultaneously.

Yes, that "what-if" situation could foul things up a bit. But, what if I need to FTP a complete job to the client, and their server is down? With links to all things, there are a myriad of "what-ifs." Now, if Adobe began to insist that all of my images reside on their server, I would begin to worry. I suppose that it could happen, and maybe activation is the first step in that process, but I don't see it happening - at least not yet.

I've lost many images that did not make it onto a backup CD, that I did not check closely enough, before deletion, images backed up to DAT's that were rendered useless by a rogue tape drive, and any number of SyQuest/SyJet/JAZ disk failures. I have clients who have lost projects because of HDD failures and had to use backups that were far, far too old. Even with care, it can happen. I don't think that I'll begin to worry about Adobe's aspirations at world domination, just yet.

Hunt

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:42:20 GMT, wrote:

In message <vX7Pc.2678$>,
"Dennis Gordon" wrote:

I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,

Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless? I started using AVG because I heard that it didn't mess the system up like Symantec or McAffee. I only use the background scan of AVG now; the scheduled late-night disk scans were what was crashing the system, apparently. I made the connection when I looked through the system alert logs and found the last entries on the night of the crash were a few minutes after the disk scan started.

Free virus checkers are worth every penny you pay for them. For a reasonably priced, excellent, small footprint virus checker try NOD32.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:42:20 GMT, wrote:

In message <vX7Pc.2678$>,
"Dennis Gordon" wrote:

I've had it happen 3 times (once may have been after an AVG crash as well,

Is there *any* virus checker that doesn't render a computer useless?

I've had good luck with F-Prot -- no system problems,
although I don't use its scan-on-access option, just a
periodic system scan.

Rick

"Arty Phacting" ...

Hi Dennis - I think this thread started from a "what if" scenario and the mild panic it induced in commercial users

Basically what if the MS Money scenario ever happened to commercial users...
Arts

It's more than a "what if" to a whole bunch of Money users. There's a better article at Computerworld,
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/ story/0,10801,94935,00.html

\\
Problem with servers has frozen users' access to their own financial data

JULY 30, 2004 (PC WORLD) - It's the end of the month -- bill-paying time -- and some Money 2004 users are wishing they had kept their cash in an old mattress instead of relying on Microsoft Corp.'s financial software. *A snafu with a couple of Microsoft servers has frozen users' access to their own financial data, even though the encrypted files are on the hard drives of their own PCs.*
....
//

The more I read about this, the more relevant to DeActivation it looks: A proprietary file format that can't be read (because you can't run the application).

And it's not just about system failure, either; it's about policy and licensing. These guys were going to lose access to their data when their subscriptions ran out, too. That's how is already with Windoze O/S and M$' office suite, and the writing is on the wall for graphics applications, unless we refuse this nonsense.

--Toby

FREE Photoshop and Illustrator plugins:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

SyQuest! Are they still available?

Know of any sources?

I invested in a drive and a couple of cartridges thinking it was the new way forward (it made sense at the time) and now I can't find a cartridge anywhere.

Great idea though - a floppy hard drive

Arts

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article ,
comedy says...

From: (Hunt)

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run

PS

on my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some third-party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected.

I *think* his point was you would be in trouble IF your system hangs and

you

need to re-activate AND at that point in time the Adobe activation link

is

fouled up like the Microsoft Money server. So basically two long-shots

have

to

come in simultaneously.

Yes, that "what-if" situation could foul things up a bit. But, what if I

need

to FTP a complete job to the client, and their server is down? With links

to

all things, there are a myriad of "what-ifs." Now, if Adobe began to

insist

that all of my images reside on their server, I would begin to worry. I suppose that it could happen, and maybe activation is the first step in

that

process, but I don't see it happening - at least not yet.
I've lost many images that did not make it onto a backup CD, that I did

not

check closely enough, before deletion, images backed up to DAT's that were rendered useless by a rogue tape drive, and any number of

SyQuest/SyJet/JAZ

disk failures. I have clients who have lost projects because of HDD

failures

and had to use backups that were far, far too old. Even with care, it can happen. I don't think that I'll begin to worry about Adobe's aspirations

at

world domination, just yet.

Hunt

The point is that so far after installing Photoshop CS (the only product with activation at this time) I have had to reactive 5 times and this is without making any changes to my hardware or OS. I am not the only one with this problem. So if their sever goes down and this happens I am out of luck or I have to phone in and talk to some drone. Not a good option at least in this day and age of overseas technical support people that can breath and ride a bike at the same time.

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation is only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would not be hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play. They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can count on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't have a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When people stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their pockets.

Microsoft will be the first one to do this. They have the deep money pockets and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case will be nullified. Once the road is cleared by them, the door is open and we will have every Tom, Dick and Harry from every company slapping the shaft in to us over this.

For an interesting take on the subject take a look at the article here. http://www.pcreviewonline.com. While there is some angles missing from the article I think the author has most of it right on the nose. It is only a matter of time and people that think it won't happen is blind, deaf and dumb. Greed rules all.

John

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a

hard

crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free. Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just

to

avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas. Now Quark's cockamamie authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to

Indy

CS rather than QXP 6. It's just too obtrusive for me, given that I don't want nor need most of the new features. We bought our copies of QXP 4 when it came out, and soon after lost several of the install floppies and CDs

due

to sloppy IT management from young punks who never bothered to register or keep track of the disks (we do have 8 nice boxes with various info and manuals left intact). But that's not a hassle, 'cuz when I build a new machine to replace an old one, I can just copy the QXP folder from anyone else's machine and run it. We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it. I know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't worth the trouble...

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can run

PS on

my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some

third-

party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI

and

the

rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In my

case,

at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
Hunt

Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license agreement in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. Besides that the license agreement can be changed at any time and without warning.

John

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

news:<bmVOc.2658$>...

Yeah, I don't get the point either. Adobe's activation system is pretty benign, although I do sweat for a moment or two when running PS after a

hard

crash and I'm asked to activate again, which only takes a second and is hassle-free.

OK, now imagine that it fails, and you cannot get it to activate. Does that prospect make you sweat? (Seem unlikely? Ask a M$ Money user.)
Sure, you'd go back to Photoshop 7 -- in which case, why did you blow the money on the "Activated" product in the first place?

Every activation barrier that a software company throws at a user increases the percentage of users who actually buy the product just

to

avoid the hassles of running cracks and betas.

It also increases the motivation for cracking and distributing cracks, which means there are more of them, and they are more easily available. Many people have remarked upon this side-effect of Adobe's supposedly-unpiratable Activated products. (Similar effects are observed with supposedly-unpiratable Windoze XP.)

Now Quark's cockamamie
authentication server dealie was one of the reasons we have upgraded to

Indy

CS rather than QXP 6. ... We paid for the software; I shouldn't have to worry about a 5 year old serial number or lost disk in order to run it.

I

know Quark needs to discourage piracy, but their new product just isn't worth the trouble...

The same kind of arrogance at Quark that sank XPress (former market leader) is evidently rife at Adobe. Our money built those corporations and when our patronage is withdrawn, they will starve.

--Toby

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. Once "activated," I can

run

PS on

my computers without an Internet connection, so if a server for some

third-

party is inactive, I don't see how I would be effected. Now, if PS (AI

and

the

rest of CS) had to "phone home," then yes, I could see a problem. In

my

case,

at least, the parallels are not so obvious. What am I still missing?
Hunt

In article <ugAPc.5267$>,
"John Doe" wrote:

Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license agreement in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades.

What does the license agreement say? That you can't uninstall CS and reinstall 7 and use it?

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:39:06 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license agreement in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. Besides that the license agreement can be changed at any time and without warning.

Of course you can go back to 7. You just uninstall CS and reinstall 7.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products are currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++ comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license server technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?

What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening to Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design community...

I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...

"John Doe" wrote in message

The point is that so far after installing Photoshop CS (the only product with activation at this time) I have had to reactive 5 times and this is without making any changes to my hardware or OS. I am not the only one

with

this problem. So if their sever goes down and this happens I am out of

luck

or I have to phone in and talk to some drone. Not a good option at least

in

this day and age of overseas technical support people that can breath and ride a bike at the same time.

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation is only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would not

be

hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play. They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can

count

on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't

have

a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When

people

stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their pockets.

Microsoft will be the first one to do this. They have the deep money

pockets

and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case will be nullified. Once the road is cleared by them, the door is open and we will have every Tom, Dick and Harry from every company slapping the shaft in to us over this.

For an interesting take on the subject take a look at the article here. http://www.pcreviewonline.com. While there is some angles missing from the article I think the author has most of it right on the nose. It is only a matter of time and people that think it won't happen is blind, deaf and dumb. Greed rules all.

John

"

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products are currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++ comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license server technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?

What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening to Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design community...
I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...

So far, not a single major software developer has shown an increase in revenues for a given product after implementing a copy protection scheme for it. So, as far as anyone knows the "problem" of casual piracy isn't a problem in the first place.

This makes sense in my view, because the simple fact is pirates don't buy software, regardless of whether it's copy protected and regardless of whether they're able to crack or break the protection. The net loss to developers from the vast majority of piracy is therefore ZERO.

Rick

John Doe writes:

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation is only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would not be hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play. They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can count on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't have a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When people stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their pockets.

This is exactly the intention of all the major vendors. Current business models depend on one-time license purchases to bring in revenue. Unfortunately, that doesn't provide a continuing stream of cash. Forcing subscriptions will change this, and eventually everyone will have to pay on a yearly or even monthly basis for every major computer software product he uses. Upgrades will be automatic and compulsory.

Microsoft will be the first one to do this.

I'm not so sure. The first one will meet a lot of market resistance and animosity. I think Adobe is just as likely to try it as Microsoft. Both want the cash, but Adobe needs it more than Microsoft.

They have the deep money pockets and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case will be nullified.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything illegal about such an arrangement, however unethical it might be. Mainframe software has worked this way since time immemorial. It has always been logistically difficult for PC software, but technical advances and the Internet are changing that. It is becoming easier and easier to monitor and control all PCs via the Net today.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Dennis Gordon writes:

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find.

Some people would, but they would be a small minority, just as they are today. Most people, including virtually all professional users, would pay.

There is also the possibility that perfectly legitimate users will nevertheless download cracks and use them, simply to avoid the loss of business revenue that will result each time the activation technology fails.

What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop owners is? 5:1? 10:1?

It's impossible to say. Even Adobe doesn't know, although I'm sure it assumes the most favorable possible ratio (that is, it likes to think that there are tons of illegal users--potential revenue sources--out there).

The number of serious but illegal users is far, far smaller, no doubt about that.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time unless both are full packages and not upgrades. That would mean you flushed the CS upgrade money down the toilet. I don't know about anyone else, but that would piss me off.

And, as I said license agreements can be changed at anytime and they don't have to notify you of the changes, hell you don't even have to agree to them. They apply or you stop using the software.

John

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:39:06 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

Actually, you can't go back to Photoshop 7. Remember the license

agreement

in CS. Especially if you get each new version through upgrades. Besides

that

the license agreement can be changed at any time and without warning.

Of course you can go back to 7. You just uninstall CS and reinstall 7.
--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check activation with every command and tool you used. I would have hard it would be to crack a program that had the protection that invasive in it. And, lets face it software is getting more and more bloated and slower and slower compared to the hardware. You go out and by the fastest computer you can find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The new software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is bloated. So, what would be another 3 or 4 MB of program code and a little slower response just so the activation and verification checks took place with ever command or tool the person used. They could also quite easily fix it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being connected to the web. No web and no program access.

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it comes to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.

John

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products

are

currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++ comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license

server

technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?

What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening

to

Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design

community...

I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...

"John Doe" wrote in message

The point is that so far after installing Photoshop CS (the only product with activation at this time) I have had to reactive 5 times and this is without making any changes to my hardware or OS. I am not the only one

with

this problem. So if their sever goes down and this happens I am out of

luck

or I have to phone in and talk to some drone. Not a good option at least

in

this day and age of overseas technical support people that can breath

and

ride a bike at the same time.

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation

is

only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would

not

be

hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play. They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can

count

on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't

have

a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When

people

stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their pockets.

Microsoft will be the first one to do this. They have the deep money

pockets

and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case will be nullified. Once the road is cleared by them, the door is open and we will have every Tom, Dick and Harry from every

company

slapping the shaft in to us over this.

For an interesting take on the subject take a look at the article here. http://www.pcreviewonline.com. While there is some angles missing from

the

article I think the author has most of it right on the nose. It is only

a

matter of time and people that think it won't happen is blind, deaf and dumb. Greed rules all.

John

"

(Hunt) wrote in message news:...

In article ,
comedy says...

From: (Hunt)

Either I do not fully understand the mechanics of Adobe's "activation" process, of I'm still missing the boat here. ...

I *think* his point was you would be in trouble IF your system hangs and you need to re-activate AND at that point in time the Adobe activation link is fouled up like the Microsoft Money server. So basically two long-shots have

to

come in simultaneously.

Yes, that "what-if" situation could foul things up a bit. But, what if I need to FTP a complete job to the client, and their server is down?

Use a different server, or post a CD. The M$ Money victims had no Plan
B.

With links to
all things, there are a myriad of "what-ifs." Now, if Adobe began to insist that all of my images reside on their server, I would begin to worry.

The data doesn't have to be on their server to be inaccessible; refer to the M$ Money saga that started the thread. Users couldn't access data on *their own machines*. Adobe DeActivation already puts you in that position if for any reason (failure or policy) you can't reActivate. (And M$ Activation has likewise separated people from their data in awkward situations, for example, laptops on aeroplanes refusing to run Office.)

I suppose that it could happen, and maybe activation is the first step in that process, but I don't see it happening - at least not yet.
I've lost many images that did not make it onto a backup CD, that I did not check closely enough, before deletion, images backed up to DAT's that were rendered useless by a rogue tape drive, and any number of SyQuest/SyJet/JAZ disk failures. I have clients who have lost projects because of HDD failures

Consider this a brand new way to lose (access to) your data.

and had to use backups that were far, far too old. Even with care, it can happen. I don't think that I'll begin to worry about Adobe's aspirations at world domination, just yet.

The warnings seem a little too early for some people. We'll check on how you feel later.

Toby

Hunt

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But, companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have the massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to less 10 or 20 percent of their clients, not that that would happen with Microsoft. Sure there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc. Microsoft is the one that is in the perfect position to run this through the courts and come out on the other end still well flushed with money and customers. No one else could do it and survive.

Legalities aren't the programs software companies have done a great job getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package, allowing it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the changes. Things like that.

With the software companies it is very much becoming an ethical program. Most have no ethics beyond what they need to make the money they think they need to make. All else is secondary and only happens when it benefits them and the bottom line.

I blame a lot of the unethical programs that corporate America has on the stock market. People that buy stocks expect their investment to keep going up and up and up. And, that is not sustainable with out screwing over a great number of people. In my opinion things would be much better if all companies were kept private so that they could concentrate more on balancing making a profit, putting out a good product and treating their customers well. Instead of making a profit, screw the rest of it.

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation

is

only the start. Once the feel they have everyone happily suckling on the activation teat, they are going to use to for subscriptions. It would

not be

hard to do with what they have now. You play to play or your don't play. They can also use it to force people to upgrade. The one thing you can

count

on is that upgrades are getting more and more pathetic (we still don't

have

a patch to fix bugs in CS) and greed rules the corporate world. When

people

stop upgrading you can be that they will turn to activation and subscriptions or forced upgrades to keep your money rolling in to their pockets.

This is exactly the intention of all the major vendors. Current business models depend on one-time license purchases to bring in revenue. Unfortunately, that doesn't provide a continuing stream of cash. Forcing subscriptions will change this, and eventually everyone will have to pay on a yearly or even monthly basis for every major computer software product he uses. Upgrades will be automatic and compulsory.

Microsoft will be the first one to do this.

I'm not so sure. The first one will meet a lot of market resistance and animosity. I think Adobe is just as likely to try it as Microsoft. Both want the cash, but Adobe needs it more than Microsoft.

They have the deep money pockets and market share to fend of the law suites that will follow and like the anti-trust case will be nullified.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything illegal about such an arrangement, however unethical it might be. Mainframe software has worked this way since time immemorial. It has always been logistically difficult for PC software, but technical advances and the Internet are changing that. It is becoming easier and easier to monitor and control all PCs via the Net today.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Rick wrote:

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. Adobe products are currently more feature rich than most people need, so if Adobe PS CS+++ comes down the pike in a year or two with an insidious subscription dongle it will most likely be met with the same enhusiasm as Quark's license server technology. I believe the market will keep a lid on these doomsday scenarios. The looming MS Money server fiasco is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. If I wanted to skip Adobe's activation I could go onto Kazaa and download their software and activation crack in a few minutes... and if they're as evil as some would say, who'd blame me?
What do you suppose the ratio of Photoshop users to licensed Photoshop owners is? 5:1? 10:1? I think the "illegal" user base is more threatening to Adobe's bottom line than whatever (ultimately doomed to fail) activation scheme the suits might try to foist on the poor, honest design community...

I don't like activation technology, but I can live with it...

So far, not a single major software developer has shown an increase in revenues for a given product after implementing a copy protection scheme for it. So, as far as anyone knows the "problem" of casual piracy isn't a problem in the first place.
This makes sense in my view, because the simple fact is pirates don't buy software, regardless of whether it's copy protected and regardless of whether they're able to crack or break the protection. The net loss to developers from the vast majority of piracy is therefore ZERO.

Usually companies putting copy limitations in their products give up a wide base of people able to handle their product, recommending it for company use, etc.

For Years, market leaders in the software industry relied upon their product being spread amongst home users to keep down competitor's products that were cheaper, limited in function but still good enough for what people needed. But copying for free - even illegally - closed the market niches.

Now some companies have acquired almost a monopoly in some markets (or at least they dominate strongly) and feel they can press competitors with patents on trivial software components, they think their customers can no longer change. They believe they can squeeze another percent of tunover from a market that actually doesn't exist: The people who use illegal copies because they can not afford expensive programs.

The result will be visible after two or three software generations: There will be a lot of people recommending cheaper (copyable) software for everydays tasks and the expensive programs will find themselves in a market niche - ten creative people working with cheap software for design and web and one prepress workstation using the expensive programs.

Michael

Rick

In article <0AFPc.5313$>,
"John Doe" wrote:

Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time unless both are full packages and not upgrades.

And who's gonna know?

Get real.

"Rick" ...

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

I accept your conspiracy theory... but if that scenario were to develop with, say, Photoshop, people would just find a crack for it, pirate it, or get by with the latest hassle-free version they can find. ...

So far, not a single major software developer has shown an increase in revenues for a given product after implementing a copy protection scheme for it.

I wonder how much the *extreme* honest-user aggravation is costing them?

The Adobe Forums are littered with upset sufferers from DeActivation. From just one recent thread:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[email protected] [email protected]/5

"...poor system make users angry and will not make any more sales. .... Why Adobe deaf for their customers"
"...all this seems to indicate that this activation feature has been very poorly designed or little thought has gone into its design. Apparently even Microsoft can do better. In German we say "Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten" which means you should stick to what you can do best."
"I'm astonished that Adobe hasn't posted a fix, or even responded to all these postings complaining about this particular problem. Where can I go for a remedy?"
"Usually it's not a problem, but it could be a huge problem for those with no immediate access to the internet or a telephone, or who are denied reactivation even when they do have net/phone access. I suspect the Adobe folk here are ... either ignoring us or somehow have their hands tied about saying anything more on the topic. If the latter, its too bad noone is willing to press their upper management into acknowledging this reactivation problem to the user community..."

Much room for optimism here.

--Toby

So, as far as anyone knows
the "problem" of casual piracy isn't a problem in the first place.
This makes sense in my view, because the simple fact is pirates don't buy software, regardless of whether it's copy protected and regardless of whether they're able to crack or break the protection. The net loss to developers from the vast majority of piracy is therefore ZERO.

Rick

"John Doe" ...

...
companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have the massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to less 10 or 20 percent of their clients,

I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing & layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade. We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
* anti-customer practices;
* predatory pricing;
* arrogance;
* declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of software for 15+ years).

...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.

Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded, sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a better, less expensive product.)

... software companies have done a great job
getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package, allowing it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the changes. Things like that.

This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use alternatives.

...

--Toby

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this activation

is

only the start. ...

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104_2-5289896.html?tag=printthis
\\
Some Microsoft Money users continued to vent their frustrations Thursday over a server glitch that has prevented them from accessing their online personal finance files for nearly four days.
"I'm just glad I don't run a business with the software," one Money user wrote in a posting to a message board. "I can't believe it's been a few days and the problem still isn't fixed."

Money is aimed at home users, not businesses.

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

So quit compalining and write a check. I know it's quaint to do things by hand, but it works!

Microsoft confirmed that some users of its Money software have been locked out of their files since Monday afternoon. Money's servers are not recognizing ID information from a group of consumers, said Goca Micic, group marketing manager for Microsoft's home retail division. "Other consumers coming into Money accounts haven't experienced the problem and will not at this point."

Micic would not say how many people were affected, nor did she offer a time frame for when the glitch would be fixed.

The issue stems from a problem with Money's servers, ... //

So what's the connection to activation?

Of course you can go back to 7. You just uninstall CS and reinstall 7.

From: "John Doe"

Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time unless both are full packages and not upgrades.

I have licensed copies of V7 and CS on two computers. Both are upgrades (I joined the party with V4). There is no problem having both versions on the same computer.

Bill

Whoah Whoah Whoah - slow down - it hasn't happened yet has it?

I mean to Adobe? Reactivation may be flawed or have hiccups but even the brightest of organisations get things wrong from time-to-time.

Sure we can speculate but sometimes speculation turns into 90% irrationality and 10% fact.

Let's turn it back to 100% fact.

All I can say as a modest humble Arty Phacting dabbler in PSCS is that it blew my socks off (not much software has that effect on me now - although The Gimp sorta created a mild rippling effect :-)

I am sure that the MS Money scenario has opened a lot of eyes (will the share price in "software secure" companies go thru the roof, meander a little or slump?)

Methinks: give the team at Adobe time to peruse the details (personally I think they are going a bit like all organisations go when hitting mega-success they lose their way a little bit n'est pas?) (I mean it even happened to the Beatles dinnit innit? And also to that computer group named after a piece of fruit)

Arts

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"John Doe" wrote in message

news:<WMFPc.5319$>...

...
companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have

the

massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to

less

10 or 20 percent of their clients,

I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing & layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade. We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
* anti-customer practices;
* predatory pricing;
* arrogance;
* declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of software for 15+ years).

...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like

Photoshop,

InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.

Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded, sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a better, less expensive product.)

... software companies have done a great job
getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package,

allowing

it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the changes. Things like that.

This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use alternatives.

...

--Toby

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this

activation

is

only the start. ...

John Doe writes:

And, as I said license agreements can be changed at anytime and they don't have to notify you of the changes, hell you don't even have to agree to them. They apply or you stop using the software.

Only if the original license says this and you originally agree to it. Even then, it's questionable.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check activation with every command and tool you used.

That wouldn't help. As long as you have physical control over a machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that machine.

You go out and by the fastest computer you can
find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The new software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is bloated.

That has been true for as long as PCs have existed (and it is also true for many other types of computers).

They could also quite easily fix
it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being connected to the web. No web and no program access.

You can simulate a Web that provides whatever the program expects.

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it comes to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.

That's when new corporations step in and put the old ones out of business.

Apple thought it could charge caviar prices for its Mac and never worry about cheaper PCs and Windows systems taking over. Apple was wrong.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But, companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

For example, Linux has
defeated Windoze in the server market ...

Windows is doing quite well in the server market, although not as well as it does on the desktop (it is never likely to do as well for servers as it does on the desktop, since it's fundamentally a desktop OS).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Not the point. This is step one and it is only going to get worse.

John

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message

In article <0AFPc.5313$>,
"John Doe" wrote:

Yes, but you have to uninstall it. You can not use both at the same time unless both are full packages and not upgrades.

And who's gonna know?

Get real.

Unfortunately, Photoshop is slipping, Illustrator probably never will be, GoLive doesn't stand a chance, InDesign maybe but that is a ways off. I don't see a monopoly. There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

John

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"John Doe" wrote in message

news:<WMFPc.5319$>...

...
companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have

the

massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to

less

10 or 20 percent of their clients,

I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing & layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade. We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
* anti-customer practices;
* predatory pricing;
* arrogance;
* declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of software for 15+ years).

...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like

Photoshop,

InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.

Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded, sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a better, less expensive product.)

... software companies have done a great job
getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package,

allowing

it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the changes. Things like that.

This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use alternatives.

...

--Toby

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this

activation

is

only the start. ...

Not true. The license agreements give the companies the right to change the agreement at any time whether you agree or not. Just like PayPal constant changes their policies and you are stuck with them like it or not. Your only option is to stop using the software, continue to use it and you agree to the changes.

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

And, as I said license agreements can be changed at anytime and they

don't

have to notify you of the changes, hell you don't even have to agree to them. They apply or you stop using the software.

Only if the original license says this and you originally agree to it. Even then, it's questionable.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe"
scribbled:

There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

Name a few.... try for, say, four.

I doubt it. Copy protection and activation that is this pervasive would be very hard to crack without making a very unstable mess of the program or makes the program stop working altogether. I can think of several ways to stop piracy that would prevent it from being broken. All of these however, would add a great deal of burden and headache to the users, but if the goal is to make money and stop piracy then that wouldn't be much of a deterrent for the companies.

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check activation with every command and tool you used.

That wouldn't help. As long as you have physical control over a machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that machine.

You go out and by the fastest computer you can
find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The

new

software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is bloated.

That has been true for as long as PCs have existed (and it is also true for many other types of computers).

They could also quite easily fix
it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being

connected

to the web. No web and no program access.

You can simulate a Web that provides whatever the program expects.

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it

comes

to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.

That's when new corporations step in and put the old ones out of business.

Apple thought it could charge caviar prices for its Mac and never worry about cheaper PCs and Windows systems taking over. Apple was wrong.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop. PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety, Type 1 Fonts are not needed thanks to TrueType and OpenType and PDF well while more of a problem the world could live without it. What the problem is is most people like what they like so they don't look for alternatives. Unlike Windows there are viable alternatives to all of these in some form or another.

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But, companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

The license agreements give the companies the right to change the agreement at any time whether you agree or not.

Only if you accept such agreements.

Additionally, as I've said, such provisions are of questionable validity.

Your only option is to stop using the software, continue to use it and you agree to the changes.

Another option is to take them to court.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

I doubt it. Copy protection and activation that is this pervasive would be very hard to crack without making a very unstable mess of the program or makes the program stop working altogether.

You don't crack the program, you crack the environment. You can make the program think anything by controlling it's environment.

I can think of several ways to stop piracy that would prevent it from being broken.

There isn't any way to prevent piracy if end users have full physical access to their machines.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

There are zero viable alternatives for professional use. In other areas, there are alternatives (Freehand, XPress, etc.).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

--snip--

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it comes to greed corporate American can
justify almost anything.

That's when new corporations step in and put the old
ones out of business.

If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies, you'd be right. New OS's or new office suites don't have a prayer against a product that comes preinstalled on
99.9% of PCs sold. Can new companies get deals with
OEMs like that? <snort>

"John Doe" wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

It doesn't matter. There are better alternatives to
Windows and IE, too, but they're what everybody
uses. Think "network effect".

FWIW - and IMHO the seepage starts at a human level not at a systematic level

Arts

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check activation with every command and tool you used.

That wouldn't help. As long as you have physical control over a machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that machine.

You go out and by the fastest computer you can
find to run the latest version of your software and what happens? The

new

software doesn't run any faster of the super fast computer, but it is bloated.

That has been true for as long as PCs have existed (and it is also true for many other types of computers).

They could also quite easily fix
it so that you couldn't use the program without your system being

connected

to the web. No web and no program access.

You can simulate a Web that provides whatever the program expects.

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but then when it

comes

to greed corporate American can justify almost anything.

That's when new corporations step in and put the old ones out of business.

Apple thought it could charge caviar prices for its Mac and never worry about cheaper PCs and Windows systems taking over. Apple was wrong.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Yup - a local government in th UK went wholly MS and saved dosh in the process (everybody has had some experience with it either in previous incarnations or at home)

Reality?

Arts

"phaedrus" wrote in message

"John Doe" wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

It doesn't matter. There are better alternatives to
Windows and IE, too, but they're what everybody
uses. Think "network effect".

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But, companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.

Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

In article <ruPPc.2541$>,
"Arty Phacting" wrote:

I am sure that the MS Money scenario has opened a lot of eyes (will the share price in "software secure" companies go thru the roof, meander a little or slump?)

As would reading the superb newsgroup comp.risks over any substantial period of time (with respect to how computers, software, automated systems, in general technology of any kind, can -- not only "can" but as a matter of virtually certainty, _will_ -- go way, way, way wrong, and wreak havoc some time, some where, in ways its creators and users never thought of).

[Definition of a fail-safe system: "A system that when it fails ("when", not "if") fails to fail fail-safe"]

Yep, and probably the most recognized, and used productivity app out there. People who couldn't defrag their boxes, hook up a scanner or open a spreadsheet know what "Photoshopping" something means. What other application is such a part of the vernacular? If Adobe shoots themselves in the foot with some byzantine protection scheme, there will still be millions who get along quite nicely with CS, or v7 or even v6...

Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

"Arty Phacting" ...

Whoah Whoah Whoah - slow down - it hasn't happened yet has it?

What do you mean? Denying access to data? Yes, it already happens frequently and inconveniently to Adobe users - read the Adobe Forums:

\\
I work from home, office and clients location all with ONE MACHINE, yet
everytime I get to the new location Photoshop seems to think I made some
critical change and requires me to register either online or over phone.

I do not have Internet at clients so I am force to dial a phone and wait for someone to help. Unacceptable. :( :( :(

Nothing...I repeat nothing has changed on my system expect for the IP address of my network ... Why then does Photoshop insist that I register. This has become an EMBARRASSMENT in front of my clients. It is one thing when software simply
fails to work. But when it INTENTIONALLY QUITS is a whole different story. ... if anyone at Adobe cares about not sinking their own ship I would suggest they reconsider this malfunctioning copy protection before they make a large portion of the customer base literally hate them and their police state software.

$700 and it says it refuses to work.. GRRRRR...
//
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[email protected] [email protected]

I'm sure Chris Skeeles regards these problems as "100% fact".

I mean to Adobe? Reactivation may be flawed or have hiccups but even the brightest of organisations get things wrong from time-to-time. ...
I am sure that the MS Money scenario has opened a lot of eyes (will the share price in "software secure" companies go thru the roof, meander a little or slump?)

Unfortunately it seems few people are drawing the "rational" conclusions.

Methinks: give the team at Adobe time to peruse the details (personally I think they are going a bit like all organisations go when hitting mega-success they lose their way a little bit n'est pas?) (I mean it even happened to the Beatles dinnit innit? And also to that computer group named after a piece of fruit)

Do you *really* want Adobe to perfect "the details" of these schemes which are intended to enrich themselves at the same time as putting your software and data completely at their discretion?

Yes, they've lost their way. But tolerating DeActivation won't help them find it again.

--Toby

Arts

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"John Doe" wrote in message

news:<WMFPc.5319$>...

...
companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position, they do not have

the

massive amounts of money that Microsoft does and they can't afford to

less

10 or 20 percent of their clients,

I have to disagree. Adobe most certainly does have a monopoly on the graphic arts market (like Quark once had on the smaller publishing & layout market). Adobe has been a behemoth for more than a decade. We're seeing all the symptoms of monopoly:
* anti-customer practices;
* predatory pricing;
* arrogance;
* declining quality of product (for example, Illustrator 9 and 10 are disastrous and costly downgrades to what was a superb piece of software for 15+ years).

...there is Linux, but no matter what the Linux heads say it is not a viable option for 90% of PC users who need programs like

Photoshop,

InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc.

Not YET. But, partly for the reasons cited above, the market is becoming ripe for credible competition. (For example, Linux has defeated Windoze in the server market, despite every underhanded, sleazy and straight-out dishonest tactic M$ could muster - by being a better, less expensive product.)

... software companies have done a great job
getting all of the laws they need past to screw customers. Such as not having to put the license agreement on the outside of the package,

allowing

it to be changed without notice or without the customer agreeing to the changes. Things like that.

This unfriendly behaviour motivates people to create and use alternatives.

...

--Toby

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

Then you have the more troubling issue and that is that this

activation
is

only the start. ...

MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and
many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.

Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

When it was struggling to gain market share in its niche, quality probably mattered. Unquestionably Photoshop is
a good product, but it's gotten to be the standard so it may as well have a monopoly. Same with Quark. A new
competing product could come out tommorow with more
features, better price, easier to use - it doesn't matter.

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)

Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.

John

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe"
scribbled:

There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

Name a few.... try for, say, four.

If you don't agree then you loose the right to use the software you just paid big bucks for and probably wouldn't be able to get a refund for. As for taking them to court, you would loose.

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

The license agreements give the companies the right to change the agreement at any time whether you agree or not.

Only if you accept such agreements.

Additionally, as I've said, such provisions are of questionable validity.

Your only option is to stop using the software, continue to use it and you agree to the changes.

Another option is to take them to court.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Sorry if you are talking about Linux it is not a viable alternative. It very much lacking in commercial software support. It needs one unified graphical interface and needs to made easier for Joe Blow and his blonde wife Betty to use, install, update and add hardware too. Until that happens it will remain a server OS and that is all.

As for IE, who said anything about browsers. You are right there. I use Firefox and like it a lot. I do however think Thunderbird sucks right now for e-mail, but things are improving with it. I just wish they would get the damn stuff out of beta. This is the problem with open source it takes for ever to get a version 1.0 release and forever and week to get major updates. Too many little fingers in the programming pie.

John

"phaedrus" wrote in message

"John Doe" wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

It doesn't matter. There are better alternatives to
Windows and IE, too, but they're what everybody
uses. Think "network effect".

I disagree with that as well. Photoshop used to be. But the last few versions of added at most poorly implements, half finished features that in later updates have been abandoned. Add to that Adobe's and their programmers attitude as to feature suggestions (basically, most of them for some reason can't be done even though they have been in competitors products) and you have a program that growing less and less innovative with each new version.

John

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But, companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.

Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

It's not that bright for M$ AFAIK. The entire Japanese government turned to TRONE OS and ditched Windows. Many, many ISPs switched to Linux. And it just a matter of time before we see GIMP and similar (great and free) substitutes win users over.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Toby Thain writes:

For example, Linux has
defeated Windoze in the server market ...

Windows is doing quite well in the server market, although not as well as it does on the desktop (it is never likely to do as well for servers as it does on the desktop, since it's fundamentally a desktop OS).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase. What that would mean is that people will eventually start to think more carefully about various OS's out there and make their choice rather than have the choice made for them. Linuces are becoming easier to use and more stable, and they can also drain more power out of hardware. GIMP is looking nice, too, so in couple of reincarnations, we'll have a choice of working with Win PC vs. Linux PC and PS vs. the GIMP. I suppose it could take a few years for this to happen, but it is still better ever than never, right?

"phaedrus" wrote in message

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

--snip--

Sure this would be a little on the dirty pool side, but
then when it comes to greed corporate American can
justify almost anything.

That's when new corporations step in and put the old
ones out of business.

If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies, you'd be right. New OS's or new office suites don't have a prayer against a product that comes preinstalled on
99.9% of PCs sold. Can new companies get deals with
OEMs like that? <snort>

On 8/3/04 12:56 PM, "John Doe" wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

Photoshop is the only tool I'm aware of that can manipulate images in such a flexible way, while keeping prepress/printing at its top priority.

PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety...<snip>

Huh? While I agree that it's nice that my platesetter and PostScript laser printers rely on PostScript, I couldn't agree that PostScript is not a necessity. Especially since PostScript IS a necessity, and not really all-that NICE. :)

If you don't understand that, you should ask here in c.p.p. (comp.publish.prepress)

Type 1 Fonts are not needed thanks to TrueType and OpenType...<snip>

Huh? Adobe is one of the main manufacturers of Type 1, TrueType and OpenType fonts, right? And OpenType is really either Type 1 or TrueType. So what does this have to do with your argument?

and PDF well while more of a problem the world could live without it...<snip>

Huh? Life without PDF? Are you absolutely insane? No thank you. PDF saves us more time/money than you could imagine. Anything prior to PDF is a step backward in time. Again, no thank you.

What the problem is is most people like what they like so they don't look for alternatives...<snip>

Huh? I don't believe that. Not in the world of prepress (this was originally posted/cross-posted to c.p.p). Most prepress professionals like what works.

For example:

Broken products are a constant struggle for us, and a big-time profit waste. Alternatives to knowingly wasting profit are extensively researched on a fairly regular basis. Alternatives that work seem to always win hands-down.

Use what works. Recommend what works to your coworkers, employees, customers, vendors.... But you better make sure it works first. :)

Unlike Windows there are viable alternatives to all of these in some form or another.

Huh? There are a few viable alternatives to Windows, but I can't see any viable alternatives to Photoshop, PostScript or fonts, regardless of their format (Type 1, TrueType or OpenType). Am I missing something??

Prepress minds want to know............

Tim

On 8/3/04 9:25 PM, in article wOXPc.5549$, "John
Doe" wrote:

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.
John

Okay. Three.

Now, tell us how these three substandard applications stack up to Photoshop in the world of prepress. I'm sure there are some very curious folks following this thread, as am I.

Do you know what prepress means? I seriously doubt it.

Tim

John Doe writes:

If you don't agree then you loose the right to use the software you just paid big bucks for and probably wouldn't be able to get a refund for.

Not all agreements are valid or enforceable.

As for taking them to court, you would loose.

What decision was handed down by the court in your case?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

phaedrus writes:

If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies, you'd be right.

None of them has a monopoly, and this happens regularly. It always seems like some company is impossible to dislodge from its dominant position ... until it abruptly happens. The history of IT is filled with such occurrences. Nobody in IT is ever secure.

New OS's or new office suites don't have
a prayer against a product that comes preinstalled on
99.9% of PCs sold.

Sure they do. It takes only a few minutes to install a new OS.

However, right now there isn't much reason to run anything other than Windows.

Can new companies get deals with OEMs like that?

Absolutely.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

Nothing...I repeat nothing has changed on my system expect for the IP address of my network ... Why then does Photoshop insist that I register. This has become an EMBARRASSMENT in front of my clients. It is one thing when software simply
fails to work. But when it INTENTIONALLY QUITS is a whole different story.

Sue them.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.

None of these approach the capabilities of Photoshop. In particular, Photoshop has unparalleled support for press requirements.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe writes:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Not for serious professional use, especially in prepress.

PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety ...

PostScript is a necessity in prepress.

Type 1 Fonts are not needed thanks to TrueType and OpenType ...

Type 1 fonts are a necessity in prepress.

... and PDF well while more of a problem the world could live without it.

You'd prefer Word as a document-exchange medium instead.

PDF is the world's most popular and portable format for electronic distribution of printed documents, and it's also one of the safest and most reliable. There is no real competition for PDF.

What the problem is is most people like what
they like so they don't look for alternatives.

The problem is that some people don't realize that there aren't any alternatives to certain key products.

Unlike Windows there are viable alternatives to all of
these in some form or another.

There are just as many alternatives to Windows as there are to Photoshop, PostScript, and PDF (in other words, there are virtually no alternatives to any of these).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

MArtin Chiselwitt writes:

Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

When you have a product that is sufficiently superior or dominant over all others, it's effectively a monopoly.

One cannot say that Windows is a monopoly and simultaneously say that Photoshop is not. There are actually more alternatives to Windows than there are to Photoshop.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Dennis Gordon writes:

Yep, and probably the most recognized, and used productivity app out there. People who couldn't defrag their boxes, hook up a scanner or open a spreadsheet know what "Photoshopping" something means. What other application is such a part of the vernacular? If Adobe shoots themselves in the foot with some byzantine protection scheme, there will still be millions who get along quite nicely with CS, or v7 or even v6...

I already do. The nice thing about most software is that it runs forever. So you can use old versions to do what you want indefinitely.

I haven't upgraded any software in a long time, and things are still working just fine for me. The software I have does everything I need.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 02:25:32 GMT, "John Doe"
scribbled:

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.

Do you really stand by that all three "are better and offer more power and features"?

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe"
scribbled:

There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

Name a few.... try for, say, four.

Mxsmanic ...

Dennis Gordon writes:

Yep, and probably the most recognized, and used productivity app out there. People who couldn't defrag their boxes, hook up a scanner or open a spreadsheet know what "Photoshopping" something means. What other application is such a part of the vernacular? If Adobe shoots themselves in the foot with some byzantine protection scheme, there will still be millions who get along quite nicely with CS, or v7 or even v6...

I already do. The nice thing about most software is that it runs forever. So you can use old versions to do what you want indefinitely.

And you can bet Adobe (and M$, etc) hate that more than anything and are frantically trying to cut off that possibility.

--Toby

I haven't upgraded any software in a long time, and things are still working just fine for me. The software I have does everything I need.

"xDsrtRat" ...

...

Money is aimed at home users, not businesses.

So it's ok to screw home users over?

You can bet quite a number of businesses use it. (Ill advised as it may be. It's also ill advised to run Windoze, but people still do that, too.)

"Please help soon," another posting read. "I know I have bills coming up."

So quit compalining and write a check. I know it's quaint to do things by hand, but it works!

Yes, it does. And that is, in fact, the lesson of the whole episode. The old way(s) still work. If M$ Money users hadn't been suckered into a subscription arrangement, they'd still be running a (computerised) system that works. Get it?

...

So what's the connection to activation?

If you have read this thread and still don't understand, then you're beyond help. Enjoy your DeActivated products; "a fool and his Money are soon parted".

--Toby

"John Doe" ...

Unfortunately, Photoshop is slipping,

It may be slipping (not unfortunately), but as of today, Adobe has a monopoly in the CMYK image processing market and has held it for easily 10 years.

Illustrator probably never will be,
GoLive doesn't stand a chance, InDesign maybe but that is a ways off.

I agree InDesign will likely take over XPress' monopoly position. After all, it's a better, cheaper product.

--Toby

don't see a monopoly. There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop and many of them are better and offer more power and features.
John

... darn top-posting ...

"John Doe" ...

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)

The market share for these programs, particularly in the pre-press and related areas, is miniscule to non-existent. Photoshop's market share constitutes a monopoly here.

--Toby

Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.
John

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:47:39 GMT, "John Doe"
scribbled:

There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

Name a few.... try for, say, four.

"John Doe" ...

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop. PostScript is not a necessity, but a nicety, Type 1 Fonts are not needed thanks to TrueType and OpenType and PDF well while more of a problem the world could live without it. What the problem is is most people like what they like so they don't look for alternatives. Unlike Windows there are viable alternatives to all of these in some form or another.

What you don't seem to understand is that "the existence of alternatives" does not mean there is no monopoly.

--Toby

John

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

John Doe writes:

What you say is true, the smaller companies need the money more. But, companies like Adobe are not in a monopoly position ...

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic ...

John Doe writes:

Yep, a crack would do it. Until Adobe decided that they had to check activation with every command and tool you used.

That wouldn't help. As long as you have physical control over a machine, you can crack any protection scheme for any software on that machine.

Can you guess what "the product formerly known as Palladium" is for?

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
\\
.... the TCG specification will transfer the ultimate control of your PC from you to whoever wrote the software it happens to be running. .... TC will also make it much harder for you to run unlicensed software. ...
If Microsoft believes that your copy of Office is a pirate copy, and your local government moves to TC, then the documents you file with them may be unreadable. ... your software suppliers can make it much harder for you to switch to their competitors' products. At a simple level, Word could encrypt all your documents using keys that only Microsoft products have access to; this would mean that you could only read them using Microsoft products, not with any competing word processor. [this is already the case, see Money debacle] ... TC will dramatically increase the costs of switching away from Microsoft products (such as Office) to rival products (such as OpenOffice). ...

The fundamental issue is that whoever controls the TC infrastructure will acquire a huge amount of power. ... There are many ways in which this power could be abused. ... Once the majority of PCs on the market are TC-enabled, the GPL won't work as intended. The benefit for Microsoft is not that this will destroy free software directly. ... //

http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/palladium/palladium.boycott. xhtml \\
DRM is the political, legal, contractual, economic, hardware, and software infrastructure designed and intended by a loose alliance of cartels and monopolies to take away your right to own and privately use a computer. ...
//

This ain't a conspiracy theory. It's a blueprint and you and I are supposed to be in it.

--Toby

...snip...

Mxsmanic ...

...It takes only a few minutes to install a new OS.

However, right now there isn't much reason to run anything other than Windows.

That's funny; I seem to have got by fine without it the last 24 years of using computers. So have all my employers.

--Toby

PS. Except occasionally I have to use it to test Mac plugins ported to it,
like the free ones here: http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

Can new companies get deals with OEMs like that?

Absolutely.

Toby Thain writes:

That's funny; I seem to have got by fine without it the last 24 years of using computers. So have all my employers.

I don't see anything amusing about that.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

Can you guess what "the product formerly known as Palladium" is for?

No product can change the principle I've described. If you have physical access to a machine, it cannot be fully secured from you.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

I agree InDesign will likely take over XPress' monopoly position. After all, it's a better, cheaper product.

That depends on which company behaves more stupidly in the years to come. Photoshop CS activation does not bode well for Adobe. Then again, dongles for XPress don't, either.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

What you don't seem to understand is that "the existence of alternatives" does not mean there is no monopoly.

Actually it does. A monopoly cannot exist if there are alternatives.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"John Doe" wrote:

Sorry if you are talking about Linux it is not a viable alternative.

I wasn't, specifically. I was thinking more of OS/2, BeOS, and some others aimed at the end user.

It very much lacking in commercial software support. It needs one unified graphical interface and needs to made easier for Joe Blow and his blonde wife Betty to use, install, update and add hardware too. Until that happens it will remain a server OS and that is all.

Any OS is going to be "lacking commercial software support" as long as Windows has 99% of the desktop market.

As for IE, who said anything about browsers.

It was an example of a piece of software that's widely used but not considered "the best".

You are right there. I use Firefox and like it a lot.

Ditto. And Opera.

"John Doe" writes

There are plenty of viable alternatives to Photoshop
and many of them are better and offer more power and features.

"Voivod" wrote in message

Name a few.

From: "John Doe"

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro

These Mickey Mouse programs don't even support ICM color management well, nor 16 bit editing.

If you really think these programs "are better and offer more power and features" than Photoshop it's easy to see why you hide behind a name like John Doe ... LOL.

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

If some of the old ones didn't have effective monopolies, you'd be right.

None of them has a monopoly,

I think M$ does. So does Judge Jackson:

<quote>
From http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings-6.html
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that
which could be charged in a competitive market.
Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to
competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly
power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that
Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's
share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating
systems is extremely large and stable.
Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected
by a high barrier to entry.
Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to
Windows.
</quote>

and this happens regularly.
It always seems like some company is impossible to
dislodge from its dominant position ... until it abruptly happens. The history of IT is filled with such occurrences. Nobody in IT is ever secure.

You sound like Gates - when he speaks publicly, that is. Most of the abrupt "dislodgings" have been done by M$, and are due to
1.) M$ controls the desktop OS market.
2.) M$ has enough money to engage in "dumping", to make substantial threats and/or bribes, or to
just buy competing companies.

New OS's or new office suites don't have a prayer
against a product that comes preinstalled on 99.9%
of PCs sold.

Sure they do. It takes only a few minutes to install a new OS.

And then... ? Will you be able to use, say, Photoshop with your new OS? The vast majority of apps are written for
Windows. How would you overcome this problem if you
were a startup company with a great new OS? Remember:
you don't have billions of dollars to throw at the problem.

And how about the office suites? It doesn't take very long to install them either, but there seem to be inertia and compatibility (with the M$ "standards") problems.

However, right now there isn't much reason to run
anything other than Windows.

There are several reasons to dump Windows. There is
one huge reason to keep Windows: the network effect.

Can new companies get deals with OEMs like that?

Absolutely.

Were you thinking of a specific example?

Hi Toby

I really don't know what to say to this apart from I hope the shift to false-secure software stops

The bottom line appears to be whatever is done is always undone and sometimes undone before the commercial product hits the shelves.

It sorta looks like the software houses seek some consolation and end up hitting customers :-(

A bit sad really

Arts

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

news:<ruPPc.2541$>...

Whoah Whoah Whoah - slow down - it hasn't happened yet has it?

What do you mean? Denying access to data? Yes, it already happens frequently and inconveniently to Adobe users - read the Adobe Forums:
\\
I work from home, office and clients location all with ONE MACHINE, yet
everytime I get to the new location Photoshop seems to think I made some
critical change and requires me to register either online or over phone.

I do not have Internet at clients so I am force to dial a phone and wait for someone to help. Unacceptable. :( :( :(

Nothing...I repeat nothing has changed on my system expect for the IP address of my network ... Why then does Photoshop insist that I register. This has become an EMBARRASSMENT in front of my clients. It is one thing when software simply
fails to work. But when it INTENTIONALLY QUITS is a whole different story. ... if anyone at Adobe cares about not sinking their own ship I would suggest they reconsider this malfunctioning copy protection before they make a large portion of the customer base literally hate them and their police state software.

$700 and it says it refuses to work.. GRRRRR...
//

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[email protected] [email protected]

I'm sure Chris Skeeles regards these problems as "100% fact".

phaedrus writes:

I think M$ does. So does Judge Jackson:

Judge Jackson was not objective.

You sound like Gates - when he speaks publicly, that is. Most of the abrupt "dislodgings" have been done by M$ ...

Your memory of IT is quite short, then.

And then... ? Will you be able to use, say, Photoshop with your new OS? The vast majority of apps are written for
Windows. How would you overcome this problem if you
were a startup company with a great new OS?

I'd make it capable of running Windows apps in compatibility mode.

Remember: you don't have billions of dollars to throw
at the problem.

Neither did Microsoft, but it managed to write Windows, and it dislodged the Mac.

There are several reasons to dump Windows. There is
one huge reason to keep Windows: the network effect.

No ordinary user really has any reason to dump Windows.

Were you thinking of a specific example?

Linux comes to mind.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

John Doe wrote:

I disagree with that as well. Photoshop used to be. But the last few versions of added at most poorly implements, half finished features that in later updates have been abandoned. Add to that Adobe's and their programmers attitude as to feature suggestions (basically, most of them for some reason can't be done even though they have been in competitors products) and you have a program that growing less and less innovative with each new version.
John

That is very much a matter of your own personal opinion.

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

I think M$ does. So does Judge Jackson:

Judge Jackson was not objective.

He was more objective than, say, a Windows user
staring at a BSOD.

Remember: you don't have billions of dollars to throw
at the problem.

Neither did Microsoft, but it managed to write Windows,
and it dislodged the Mac.

That's how you remember it, eh?

Mxsmanic wrote:

One cannot say that Windows is a monopoly and simultaneously say that Photoshop is not.

I can and I do.

A monopoly is a market in which there are many consumers but no choice. Or rather, only one choice. Specifically, that is to say, there is no competition in a 'monopoly'.
There have always been alternatives to Photoshop, some of them not unreasonable.
It has a large market share, it does NOT monopolise that share. They do not use questionable economic tactics to stop you using CorelDraw or PaintShop Pro. etc...
People will vote with their cash at the end of the day and that is what has elevated Photoshop to it's current status. Conversely, it is also what may destroy it, as this thread occasionaly points out.

I find similar sentiments with regard to Flash which I also own. I have tried the alternatvies. They are/weren't good enough. Look at the sorry tale of Live Motion and you will see that Adobe are far from the uber-software house that you paint them out [hehe] to be...

mc

There are actually more alternatives to Windows than

there are to Photoshop.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 02:25:32 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.

I wouldn't say that PSP is viable for prepress for a start.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:31:14 -0500, phaedrus
wrote:

MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Adobe has a monopoly on image-editing software and
many aspects of electronic publishing, such as PostScript, Type 1 fonts, and PDF.

Monopoly isn't really the correct word. Not with regard to Photoshop anywyay. It is just the superior application in its class. Bar none.

When it was struggling to gain market share in its niche, quality probably mattered. Unquestionably Photoshop is
a good product, but it's gotten to be the standard so it may as well have a monopoly. Same with Quark. A new
competing product could come out tommorow with more
features, better price, easier to use - it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't agree about Quark. Anyone with any sense has been looking for an alternative for years. And now it's available - InDesign CS.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

phaedrus wrote:

When it was struggling to gain market share in its niche, quality probably mattered. Unquestionably Photoshop is
a good product, but it's gotten to be the standard so it may as well have a monopoly. Same with Quark. A new
competing product could come out tommorow with more
features, better price, easier to use - it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't agree about Quark. Anyone with any sense
has been looking for an alternative for years. And now
it's available - InDesign CS.

You could be right. I haven't been keeping up
with Quark competitors for a while.

phaedrus writes:

He was more objective than, say, a Windows user
staring at a BSOD.

So? Neither is objective enough to reach decisions concerning Microsoft's position in the industry.

That's how you remember it, eh?

Yes. Microsoft used to be a small company.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

MArtin Chiselwitt writes:

There have always been alternatives to Photoshop, some of them not unreasonable.

There are no alternatives to Photoshop that are any more reasonable than the alternatives to Windows.

For most users of both of these categories of software, there are no practical alternatives to Photoshop or Windows.

It has a large market share, it does NOT monopolise that share.

Yes, it does. In prepress particularly, you use Photoshop or you use nothing at all. It's the only option for many professional applications.

They do not use questionable economic tactics to stop you using CorelDraw or PaintShop Pro. etc...

CorelDraw and PSP are both dramatically inferior to Photoshop.

People will vote with their cash at the end of the day and that is what has elevated Photoshop to it's current status.

The same is true for Windows.

I find similar sentiments with regard to Flash which I also own.

Flash is less of a problem, since it's not necessary for anything, and indeed good Web sites are designed without it.

I have tried the alternatvies. They are/weren't good enough.

Flash is a solution looking for a problem, so alternatives don't matter, since nobody needs it, anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I'm from prepress and I don't see any problem with Photo-paint. I actually like it very much. You should see the color correction options available in PP. Now *that's* a time-saver. The only problem is that it is just half a step behind PS in some areas (bulky interface, for one). Color management has improved impressively and I think it's now quite a serious competitor even in the prepress world.

And, of course, CorelDRAW (whith which PP integrates literally) has always had Illy eat dust. The text handling in both PP and DRAW are superb. I only wish Ventura was released in full Unicode version so I could ditch Adobe altogether (well, all except for the beautiful OTF fonts).

"Tim Monk" wrote in message

On 8/3/04 9:25 PM, in article wOXPc.5549$, "John
Doe" wrote:

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)
Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.
John

Okay. Three.

Now, tell us how these three substandard applications stack up to Photoshop
in the world of prepress. I'm sure there are some very curious folks following this thread, as am I.

Do you know what prepress means? I seriously doubt it.

Tim

AFAIK, Billy didn't even invent DOS. Caldera might have something to say on this topic...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

phaedrus writes:

He was more objective than, say, a Windows user
staring at a BSOD.

So? Neither is objective enough to reach decisions concerning Microsoft's position in the industry.

That's how you remember it, eh?

Yes. Microsoft used to be a small company.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

You'd better believe it. Even Corel DRAW can do a better job than Quark in some areas (say, international support that has been hugely overlooked by many companies and users alike).

"phaedrus" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

phaedrus wrote:

When it was struggling to gain market share in its niche, quality probably mattered. Unquestionably Photoshop is
a good product, but it's gotten to be the standard so it may as well have a monopoly. Same with Quark. A new
competing product could come out tommorow with more
features, better price, easier to use - it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't agree about Quark. Anyone with any sense
has been looking for an alternative for years. And now
it's available - InDesign CS.

You could be right. I haven't been keeping up
with Quark competitors for a while.

See, the problem is you know little about other programs to start with. Photo-Paint supports 16 bit/channel mode and it has full ICM capability. The only thing I don't like about PP is its documentation (which is very lacking to say the least).

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
[sic]

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro

These Mickey Mouse programs don't even support ICM color management well, nor
16 bit editing.

[sic]

Branko Vukelic writes:

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.

It is decreasing. A computers become more and more of a commodity, fewer and fewer people build their own. How many people do you know who build their own cars, washing machines, or television sets?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Branko Vukelic writes:

AFAIK, Billy didn't even invent DOS.

Neither did Steve or Larry.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Branko Vukelic writes:

It's not that bright for M$ AFAIK. The entire Japanese government turned to TRONE OS and ditched Windows.

They may change their minds. Most applications available in the world run on PCs under Windows.

Sometimes organizations believe their IT managers, even when these managers learn everything they know from a couple of trade rags. As a result, they sometimes make bizarre decisions. But time corrects any mistakes.

Many, many ISPs switched to Linux. And it just
a matter of time before we see GIMP and similar (great and free) substitutes win users over.

Other versions of UNIX are superior to Linux; the fact that so many ISPs use the latter is further proof of what I mention above. It's surprising how many people in IT these days don't really know much about what they are doing.

The GIMP isn't going to win anyone over in the professional domains where Photoshop is currently king. The GIMP is useless for prepress, for example. It does have an appropriate name, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Branko Vukelic writes:

It's not that bright for M$ AFAIK. The entire Japanese government turned to TRONE OS and ditched Windows.

They may change their minds. Most applications available in the world run on PCs under Windows.

Sometimes organizations believe their IT managers, even when these managers learn everything they know from a couple of trade rags. As a result, they sometimes make bizarre decisions. But time corrects any mistakes.

Many, many ISPs switched to Linux. And it just
a matter of time before we see GIMP and similar (great and free) substitutes win users over.

Other versions of UNIX are superior to Linux; the fact that so many ISPs use the latter is further proof of what I mention above. It's surprising how many people in IT these days don't really know much about what they are doing.

You're vastly underestimating the prowess and foresight of "many" IT managers. I've seen it first-hand, all over the Silicon Valley -- the bottom line is, corporations have had it with constant security breaches, incessant upgrades and retraining, forced audits, and on and on and on. Microsoft (or to put it more accurately, Steve Ballmer) is in the process of greeding themselves out of existence.

It will take years for it to happen, but it IS happening. Out of the dozen major projects I've had this year, none -- ZERO -- have been migrations to Microsoft server products. Nearly ALL of them have been migrations FROM Microsoft products to *nix.

Rick

"Branko Vukelic" posted:
"...
See, the problem is you know little about other programs to start with. Photo-Paint supports 16 bit/channel mode and it has full ICM capability. ...."

Yes ... and has since version 8 ... 1997.

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

See, the problem is you know little about other programs to start with. Photo-Paint supports 16 bit/channel mode and it has full ICM capability. The only thing I don't like about PP is its documentation (which is very lacking to say the least).

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
[sic]

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro

These Mickey Mouse programs don't even support ICM color management well, nor
16 bit editing.

[sic]

Mxsmanic ...

Toby Thain writes:

What you don't seem to understand is that "the existence of alternatives" does not mean there is no monopoly.

Actually it does. A monopoly cannot exist if there are alternatives.

OK, I concede it's an inadequate word. Let's call it "market leadership" instead. However, there are not yet credible alternatives in pre-press & graphic arts. I have seen many promising competitors (e.g. Linotype-Hell DaVinci) killed off in front of my eyes by Photoshop on commodity hardware. Likewise, PostScript saw off all competition in several markets (office printers, imagesetters, etc).

That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology. These products have all entered a bloated and unhealthy middle age. Shakily retrofitted PDF and an over-ambitious hybrid imaging model (raster/vector/transparency/etc) are among the cancers. Users suffer the effects of these tumours daily. The once-great products will eventually succumb to their diseases, leaving room for a new crop of lean, elegant technologies. (That's the optimistic view :)

What I am mainly getting at is that Adobe is showing all the signs of a company that is too large, run by its accountants, and suicidally arrogant. The imposition of DeActivation-type mechanisms on deceptive pretexts (stops piracy! sure) merely proves cynical disinterest in their customers.

--Toby

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

Flash is less of a problem, since it's not necessary for anything, and indeed good Web sites are designed without it.

Flash is a solution looking for a problem, so alternatives don't matter, since nobody needs it, anyway.

Total, arrogant bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that as I think you are baiting or you really are woefully ignorant. Contribute to the discussion when you know what you are talking about.

Baiting? He's exactly correct. Macromedia continues to be intentionally oblivious to the fact that 85% of the world is still on dialup. I can't count the number of poorly designed sites with tons of pointless, unnecessary Flash CRAP, with no option to bypass it. I'm wearing out the Back button on my extended keyboard.

Rick

Flash is less of a problem, since it's not necessary for anything, and indeed good Web sites are designed without it.

Flash is a solution looking for a problem, so alternatives don't matter, since nobody needs it, anyway.

Total, arrogant bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that as I think you are baiting or you really are woefully ignorant. Contribute to the discussion when you know what you are talking about.

I have to agree with you. I have a dial up at home and a T1 line at work, and I just don't get the point of these Shockwave/Flash sites that contribute nothing to the web experience, other than pointing out "Look what I can do!" in varied shades of irritation. If you want to talk about bloated software, we should leave Photoshop alone and look at the purveyance of flashy and useless animation on the web. Obviously I don't mean those using it in clever and creative ways, Atomfilms, e.g., but the relentless stream of pointless promotion that has zero content and juvenile appeal. I guess it's simply an extension of our general pop culture where talent is trumped by artificially enhanced bimbos trumpeting "...hey, get a look at these...."

Baiting? He's exactly correct. Macromedia continues to be intentionally oblivious to the fact that 85% of the world is still on dialup. I can't count the number of poorly designed sites with tons of pointless, unnecessary Flash CRAP, with no option to bypass it. I'm wearing out the Back button on my extended keyboard.

Rick

"Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build
their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.
What that would mean is that people will eventually start to think more carefully about various OS's out there and make their choice rather than have the choice made for
them.

I'd bet you're talking about a miniscule percentage.
IME, the average user still has a superficial knowledge
of his/her machine. Some use a computer at work and
only learn a couple of work-related programs, some use
a computer at home for internet, games, DTP, etc.
I consider myself beginner-to-intermediate level, but I get asked to troubleshoot all kinds of basic stuff --
reinstalling the OS, cleaning up after a virus/worm,
setting up dial-up networking, etc., etc. There people
aren't going to know how to move to another OS, but
that doesn't mean they don't deserve to have a choice
of OS.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Branko Vukelic writes:

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build
their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.

It is decreasing. A computers become more and more
of a commodity, fewer and fewer people build their own. How many people do you know who build their own cars,
washing machines, or television sets?

Bad analogy. The items you mentioned are all stand-
alone products. A computer is more related to a stereo
system.

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

He was more objective than, say, a Windows user
staring at a BSOD.

So? Neither is objective enough to reach decisions
concerning Microsoft's position in the industry.

Who is? You?

Remember: you don't have billions of dollars
to throw at the problem.

Neither did Microsoft, but it managed to write
Windows, and it dislodged the Mac.

That's how you remember it, eh?

Yes. Microsoft used to be a small company.

I think most companies started small :-)
Windows didn't put M$ on the map; MS-DOS did.
M$ rode on the coattails of a company that _did_
have billions.

"Branko Vukelic" wrote:

AFAIK, Billy didn't even invent DOS. Caldera might have something to say on this topic...

http://tinyurl.com/53pv8
"The origin of MS-DOS can be traced back to 1980
when Seattle Computer Producers developed a
microcomputer operating system for in-house use and
was called QDOS and then renamed 86-DOS in late
1980 after modification.
"Microsoft bought the rights to 86-DOS [...] "

phaedrus writes:

Bad analogy. The items you mentioned are all stand-
alone products. A computer is more related to a stereo
system.

Most stereo systems are standalone products, and so are most computers. This trend will only continue.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

phaedrus writes:

Who is? You?

Yes, amongst others.

I think most companies started small :-)
Windows didn't put M$ on the map; MS-DOS did.

Windows was the main motor behind Microsoft's growth. MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, whereas Windows was a clear competitor to the Mac, and after the first few versions, it was equal or superior to the Mac as well.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Rick writes:

You're vastly underestimating the prowess and foresight of "many" IT managers.

No, I'm estimating it accurately. I've dealt with a very great many of them.

I've seen it first-hand, all over the Silicon Valley --

There's more to the world than Silicon Valley.

... the bottom line is, corporations have had it with constant security breaches, incessant upgrades and retraining, forced audits, and on and on and on. Microsoft (or to put it more accurately, Steve Ballmer) is in the process of greeding themselves out of existence.

Not really. What drives the environment is the applications, and as long as the applications companies want run on Windows, they will run Windows on their machines, irrespective of other considerations. The OS is far less important than the applications.

It will take years for it to happen, but it IS happening.

It goes without saying that Windows will not be around forever. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to disappear. There are no practical alternatives right now.

Out of the dozen major projects I've had this year, none -- ZERO -- have been migrations to Microsoft server products. Nearly ALL of them have been migrations FROM Microsoft products to *nix.

As I've said, there's more to the world than Silicon Valley.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology. These products have all entered a bloated and unhealthy middle age.

Who forced you to upgrade?

Shakily retrofitted PDF and an over-ambitious hybrid imaging model (raster/vector/transparency/etc) are among the cancers.

Adobe has to find excuses for upgrades, as it depends on upgrades for continued, unrealistically high revenue.

Users suffer the effects of these tumours daily.

No one forces them to upgrade. I still run Photoshop 5.02, Illustrator 8, and Acrobat 4.05.

The once-great products will
eventually succumb to their diseases, leaving room for a new crop of lean, elegant technologies. (That's the optimistic view :)

I agree.

What I am mainly getting at is that Adobe is showing all the signs of a company that is too large, run by its accountants, and suicidally arrogant.

I agree. All companies eventually reach that point.

The imposition of DeActivation-type mechanisms on deceptive pretexts (stops piracy! sure) merely proves cynical disinterest in their customers.

I agree.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

MArtin Chiselwitt writes:

Total, arrogant bullshit.

No, it's a rather brutally realistic look at how the Web actually works. Only Flash geeks think that Flash is necessary. Seasoned Web surfers and designers consider it a cancer on the Web.

I'm not even going to respond to that ...

You just did.

... as I think you are baiting or you really are woefully ignorant.

And I think you have no effective counterargument, as that is about the only way to explain your personal attack.

Contribute to the discussion when you know what you are talking about.

See above. I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Rick writes:

Baiting? He's exactly correct. Macromedia continues to be intentionally oblivious to the fact that 85% of the world is still on dialup. I can't count the number of poorly designed sites with tons of pointless, unnecessary Flash CRAP, with no option to bypass it. I'm wearing out the Back button on my extended keyboard.

I just leave any site that requires any type of Flash. Sometimes I write to the owner of the site to point out the stupidity of Flash, but often the people who read the letter don't know what I'm talking about, and those who do are so addicted to their Flash toy that they'll whine and complain endlessly if anyone questions the utility of their gadget.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Recently, Toby Thain posted:

That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology.

Hmm. When, exactly, were those mythical days? If anything, Photoshop and Illustrator were pushed into the "world-beating technology" arena by the establishment of PostScript (and EPS by extension) as the primary publishing format. Until that became firmly entrenched, there were several better image editors and better vector-based drawing applications with features that didn't get incorporated into Adobe's offerings until quite recently.

Regards,

Neil

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:56:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
scribbled:

Branko Vukelic writes:

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.

It is decreasing. A computers become more and more of a commodity, fewer and fewer people build their own. How many people do you know who build their own cars, washing machines, or television sets?

How many cars, television sets or washing machines can be purchased piece by piece from dozens of different companies and assembled by the barely competent? Hmm.....

phaedrus wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Branko Vukelic writes:

Yeah, but more and more people are starting to build
their own systems. I don't know the stats, but I sincerely hope the percentage is in increase.

It is decreasing. A computers become more and more
of a commodity, fewer and fewer people build their own. How many people do you know who build their own cars,
washing machines, or television sets?

Bad analogy. The items you mentioned are all stand-
alone products. A computer is more related to a stereo
system.

I agree it is a bad analogy because computers have a modular design unlike washing machines, televisions or most cars (kit cars excluded). A computer has been designed so all parts can be easily changed by anyone and everyone.

I think that was what you were getting at with the stereo system.

Stuart

Stuart wrote:

Bad analogy. The items you mentioned are all stand-
alone products. A computer is more related to a stereo
system.

I agree it is a bad analogy because computers have a
modular design unlike washing machines, televisions or
most cars (kit cars excluded). A computer has been
designed so all parts can be easily changed by anyone
and everyone.

I think that was what you were getting at with the stereo system.

Yup. I should've said "component stereo system".

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

Who is? You?

Yes, amongst others.

Well, if you're objective about this, than so am I.

I think most companies started small :-)
Windows didn't put M$ on the map; MS-DOS did.

Windows was the main motor behind Microsoft's growth.
MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, whereas Windows was
a clear competitor to the Mac, and after the first few
versions, it was equal or superior to the Mac as well.

I agree that MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, but
it's what made M$ a force to be reckoned with.
Do you think Windows would have gained the
market share it did if it wasn't riding on MS-DOS's
coattails?

Who gave you the right to say that 'nobody needs it'?
YOU can't speak for me. Are you a cartoonist or animator. Of course not, because you wouldn't have such an unqualified opinion on the subject. Where did I say I was talking about Flash 'for the web'?? I work for TV, CD even had stuff delivered for viewing in a cinema. In its class Flash is easily the cheapest all-round app. Affordable, economic... If you want to talk about the web, most of it is still HTML based and mostly dreary shit.

Mxsmanic wrote:

MArtin Chiselwitt writes:

Total, arrogant bullshit.

No, it's a rather brutally realistic look at how the Web actually works.

Who gave you the right to say that 'nobody needs it'?
You don't speak for me. Are you a illustrattor, cartoonist, animator? Of course not, because you wouldn't have such an unqualified and bitter opinion on the subject.
Where did I say I was talking about Flash 'for the web'?? I work for TV, CD even had stuff delivered for viewing in a cinema. The fact that I can do stuff for the web is a bonus. In its class Flash is easily the cheapest all-round app. Affordable, economic... If you want to talk about the web, most of it is still HTML based and mostly dreary shit.

Only Flash geeks think that Flash is necessary. Seasoned Web surfers and designers consider it a cancer on the Web.

Who? Tut tut, such histrionic language. Necessary? Who's to judge? Not you. It is a great creative tool. Justify how that is 'not needed' please.,.. Because you probably don't have an iota of talent or creative ability?
Hence, your bitterness and rancour... Poor you

I'm not even going to respond to that ...

You just did.

Yep.. more fool me

... as I think you are baiting or you really are woefully ignorant.

And I think you have no effective counterargument, as that is about the only way to explain your personal attack.

See above.

Contribute to the discussion when you know what you are talking about.

See above. I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks.

Expect to be 'attacked' when you issue invective and ill-informed and half-baked rhetoric on a newsgroup

Stuart writes:

I agree it is a bad analogy because computers have a modular design unlike washing machines, televisions or most cars (kit cars excluded).

Computers do not have a modular design any more than cars do. Everything is enclosed in a box, with one or two cables for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. There's nothing modular about that.

A computer has been designed so all parts can be easily changed by anyone and everyone.

Not so. Only computer geeks can change the parts in a computer. Most people don't even know how to open the case of the computer; many don't know that the case opens.

The analogy is thus quite apt, because opening the case of a computer is rather like raising the hood of a car, and very few people are willing or able to do either of these things.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Voivod writes:

How many cars, television sets or washing machines can be purchased piece by piece from dozens of different companies and assembled by the barely competent? Hmm.....

Very few. But this is also true for computers. I don't know anyone who is "barely competent" and yet can assemble a computer.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

phaedrus writes:

Well, if you're objective about this, than so am I.

Maybe you are. I don't know. Usually people who are biased reveal themselves by the emotional loading and subjective character of their posts.

I agree that MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, but
it's what made M$ a force to be reckoned with.

Not really. Microsoft did better with its applications, such as its office automation products (some of which ran on the Mac) and its compiler suites. The operating system just wasn't that big a deal.

Do you think Windows would have gained the
market share it did if it wasn't riding on MS-DOS's
coattails?

Yes. It looked a lot like the Mac and was far cheaper, and it ran on commodity hardware instead of an overpriced platform available from only a single overcontrolling source. It would not have mattered what were beneath it; MS-DOS or not, it would have succeeded, for the reasons I've just given.

Windows was at least as much a failure of Apple as it was a success of Microsoft.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

MArtin Chiselwitt writes:

Who gave you the right to say that 'nobody needs it'?

It's not a right, it's an observation.

YOU can't speak for me.

Okay.

Are you a cartoonist or animator. Of course not ...

Neither are 99.99999% of most of the hundreds of millions of people surfing the Web today. And they don't want to have to download and watch Flash animations because some would-be cartoonist or animator has nothing better to do than degrade sites with Flash content.

... because you wouldn't have such an unqualified opinion on the subject.

My opinion is based on a broad perspective of Web users as a whole.

Where did I say I was talking about Flash 'for the web'??

I assumed you were. Where else would you use it?

I work for TV, CD even had stuff delivered for viewing in a cinema.

Fine. As long as I'm not forced to watch it in order to check the weather or order a book, I don't care what you do with the stuff you create.

In its class Flash is easily the cheapest all-round app.

There isn't much in its class.

If you want to talk about the web, most of it is still HTML based and mostly dreary shit.

It's only "dreary shit" to people who are more concerned with pretty colors and moving cartoons than with substance. Some of the most visited sites on the Web consist almost entirely of text, so there must be a lot of people who prefer the "dreary shit" over the adolescent eye candy.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

erm? can I disagree?

It cannot be by any chance the consumers voted by spending money can it?

I can remember <innocent whistle while gazing towards the stars> when every different computer had it's own bespoke operating system/ And sure - the
3.5" floppy was a revolution (unless your computer invested in 2"
alternatives) but one floppy in one computer would not talk to another computer. Then there was the birth of e-m-u-l-a-t-o-r-s

If you were really unlucky you'd have to reboot the computer on your emulator disk and try to read the disk from the other computer that way. Juggle another couple of floppies any -wahey! - you may just be able to read the data on the disk.

Can anyone remember those times - uh huh - forget I asked.

I'd like to think that the reason one OS and one Office suite is so popular is because of the echos through time of those dark mysterious days.

Is it a worry?
Heck, 'course it is. The public voted in terms of where they spent their money bypassing all socio-political systems, commercial systems, national steering groups and sub-committees/ You betcha it is a problem - everyone with a power ego was seriously disappointed Well, apart from Mr Gates.

Arts

ps - well it had to be one didn;t it?

A

"phaedrus" wrote in message

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

Who is? You?

Yes, amongst others.

Well, if you're objective about this, than so am I.

I think most companies started small :-)
Windows didn't put M$ on the map; MS-DOS did.

Windows was the main motor behind Microsoft's growth.
MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, whereas Windows was
a clear competitor to the Mac, and after the first few
versions, it was equal or superior to the Mac as well.

I agree that MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, but
it's what made M$ a force to be reckoned with.
Do you think Windows would have gained the
market share it did if it wasn't riding on MS-DOS's
coattails?

Arty Phacting writes:

It cannot be by any chance the consumers voted by spending money can it?

Consumers always vote by spending money. It's extremely difficult to get people to spend money when or where they don't want to, no matter how clever or intensive the marketing.

Can anyone remember those times - uh huh - forget I asked.

Yes, I remember.

I'd like to think that the reason one OS and one Office suite is so popular is because of the echos through time of those dark mysterious days.

Today nobody remembers those days (almost). But things are nevertheless much better than they once were.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Yes, infinitely so

Arts

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Arty Phacting writes:

It cannot be by any chance the consumers voted by spending money can it?

Consumers always vote by spending money. It's extremely difficult to get people to spend money when or where they don't want to, no matter how clever or intensive the marketing.

Can anyone remember those times - uh huh - forget I asked.

Yes, I remember.

I'd like to think that the reason one OS and one Office suite is so

popular

is because of the echos through time of those dark mysterious days.

Today nobody remembers those days (almost). But things are nevertheless much better than they once were.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:59:30 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Other versions of UNIX are superior to Linux; the fact that so many ISPs use the latter is further proof of what I mention above. It's surprising how many people in IT these days don't really know much about what they are doing.

Absolutely. I know of one organisation which switched to Linux servers. After a couple of weeks it was obvious that Linux couldn't cope with the web server loading and they moved to another Unix.

The GIMP isn't going to win anyone over in the professional domains where Photoshop is currently king. The GIMP is useless for prepress, for example. It does have an appropriate name, though.

Anything which involves the ordinary user having to install more than one thing to get software working, unless wrapped up in a proper installation program, won't be used by the ordinary user. And, as you say, GIMP is useless for professional purposes.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 05:40:28 -0700, "Rick" wrote:

Flash is a solution looking for a problem, so alternatives don't matter, since nobody needs it, anyway.

Total, arrogant bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that as I think you are baiting or you really are woefully ignorant. Contribute to the discussion when you know what you are talking about.

Baiting? He's exactly correct. Macromedia continues to be intentionally oblivious to the fact that 85% of the world is still on dialup. I can't count the number of poorly designed sites with tons of pointless, unnecessary Flash CRAP, with no option to bypass it. I'm wearing out the Back button on my extended keyboard.

Flash is a useful; technology which, if used properly won't even be noticed by the "surfer". Used improperly,. it can be a real PITA> The problem is not Flash, but the number of incompetent web designers.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate writes:

Flash is a useful; technology which, if used properly won't even be noticed by the "surfer".

It will at anything other than broadband speeds. It will also be noticed by surfers using secure systems, since they will have active component support turned off in their browsers for security reasons.

Thus, anyone with a slow connection (and such people are legion) or with security restrictions on his browser will not be able to use a site that depends on Flash.

The problem is not Flash, but the number of incompetent web designers.

Use of Flash is usually a pretty good indicator of incompetence. It's extremely difficult to find valid, objective justifications for any type of Flash content on a site.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Stuart writes:

I agree it is a bad analogy because computers have
a modular design unlike washing machines, televisions
or most cars (kit cars excluded).

Computers do not have a modular design any more than
cars do. Everything is enclosed in a box, with one or two cables for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. There's
nothing modular about that.

Can you buy a Buick transmission to replace a Geo's? No. Can you buy a Seagate hard drive to replace an IBM? Yes. Computers are more like component stereo systems.

A computer has been designed so all parts can be easily changed by anyone and everyone.

Not so. Only computer geeks can change the parts in a
computer.

Not so. I changed a modem the first year I owned a PC.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Voivod writes:

How many cars, television sets or washing machines can be purchased piece by piece from dozens of different companies and assembled by the barely competent? Hmm.....

Very few. But this is also true for computers. I don't know anyone who is "barely competent" and yet can assemble a computer.

Ever talk to anyone at Gateway?

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

Well, if you're objective about this, than so am I.

Maybe you are. I don't know. Usually people who
are biased reveal themselves by the emotional loading
and subjective character of their posts.

True. Also by what information they present and
what they omit.

I agree that MS-DOS wasn't that impressive, but
it's what made M$ a force to be reckoned with.

Not really. Microsoft did better with its applications, such as its office automation products (some of which
ran on the Mac) and its compiler suites. The operating
system just wasn't that big a deal.

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a big
deal.

Do you think Windows would have gained the
market share it did if it wasn't riding on MS-DOS's
coattails?

Yes. It looked a lot like the Mac

I wonder why that was...

and was far cheaper,

Because it was riding on DOS's coattails.

and it ran on commodity hardware instead of an
overpriced platform available from only a single
overcontrolling source.

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?
I doubt that it was IBM's or Microsoft's plan to
make as little money as possible.

It would not have mattered what were beneath it;
MS-DOS or not, it would have succeeded, for the
reasons I've just given.

Well, I disagree.

Windows was at least as much a failure of Apple
as it was a success of Microsoft.

Windows had IBM and MS-DOS in its corner.
Apple didn't.

"Arty Phacting" top-posted:

erm? can I disagree?

Sure.

It cannot be by any chance the consumers voted by
spending money can it?

Voted on what? IBM clones running MS-DOS vs
building their own from scratch vs Apple?

"Neil Gould" ...

Recently, Toby Thain posted:

That was in the days when Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript were lean, elegant and obviously world-beating technology.

Hmm. When, exactly, were those mythical days? If anything, Photoshop and Illustrator were pushed into the "world-beating technology" arena by the establishment of PostScript (and EPS by extension) as the primary publishing format. Until that became firmly entrenched, there were several better image editors and better vector-based drawing applications with features that didn't get incorporated into Adobe's offerings until quite recently.

Illustrator hit the market no more than 2 years after PostScript did, as a fully functional "EPS creator". It was obvious at its release that it was a groundbreaking new way of working. Photoshop followed not long after, with the same impact. The entire revolutionary suite was available by 1990.

--Toby

Regards,

Neil

phaedrus writes:

Can you buy a Buick transmission to replace a Geo's? No. Can you buy a Seagate hard drive to replace an IBM? Yes.

Can you buy commodity tires for both? Yes. Do they use the same fuel? Yes. Is the shift pattern the same? Yes. Can you buy commodity light bulbs and fuses for them? Yes. And so on.

Not so. I changed a modem the first year I owned a PC.

If you know what a modem is, you're not an average computer user (and if you know what a transmission is, you're not an average driver).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

phaedrus writes:

Ever talk to anyone at Gateway?

No. I've talked to people who are barely competent with computers, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a big
deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

I wonder why that was...

Because MS saw the success of the Mac and wanted to develop a cheaper alternative, which it did.

Because it was riding on DOS's coattails.

No, because Microsoft was young and hungry and not greedy, whereas Apple had delusions of grandeur (and still does).

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked), or you did without.

I doubt that it was IBM's or Microsoft's plan to
make as little money as possible.

Of course not. But they did understand that volume makes up for low prices, a principle that was apparently lost on Apple.

Windows had IBM and MS-DOS in its corner.
Apple didn't.

Apple didn't need that. All it needed was competent management. But it didn't have competent management. It never has.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a big
deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Becaue the OS 3as available only for original Apple hardware - Apple never allowed compatible hardware products.

I wonder why that was...

Because MS saw the success of the Mac and wanted to develop a cheaper alternative, which it did.

Because it was riding on DOS's coattails.

No, because Microsoft was young and hungry and not greedy, whereas Apple had delusions of grandeur (and still does).

Mainly because people could run a free (here: =illegal) copy of Windows and DOS on the hardware they bought cheaply at various sources.

I doubt that it was IBM's or Microsoft's plan to
make as little money as possible.

Of course not. But they did understand that volume makes up for low prices, a principle that was apparently lost on Apple.

They understood that filling a market with products is more important than making a big revenue from it in the beginning.

An M$ understood very well that _not_ making hardware and creating version after version of software instead avoided warranty problems.

Michael

Mxsmanic wrote:

Rick writes:

You're vastly underestimating the prowess and foresight of "many" IT managers.

No, I'm estimating it accurately. I've dealt with a very great many of them.

I've seen it first-hand, all over the Silicon Valley --

There's more to the world than Silicon Valley.

... the bottom line is, corporations have had it with constant security breaches, incessant upgrades and retraining, forced audits, and on and on and on. Microsoft (or to put it more accurately, Steve Ballmer) is in the process of greeding themselves out of existence.

Not really. What drives the environment is the applications, and as long as the applications companies want run on Windows, they will run Windows on their machines, irrespective of other considerations. The OS is far less important than the applications.

The current paradigm is centralising of application on server farms and thin clients running only the front end software. When you run more than a dozen clients ROI on the migration process will be shorter than the client's lifetime.

You seem to be stuck in the fat client/standalone time.

It will take years for it to happen, but it IS happening.

It goes without saying that Windows will not be around forever. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to disappear. There are no practical alternatives right now.

For prepress the Mac and PS, for office use Open Office/Star Office and the remaining apps on the central server with citrix clients under Linux. No alternative?

Have fun
Michael

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 02:25:32 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

Corel Photo-Paint
Jasc PaintShop Pro
Canvas (even has live filters which Adobe says is currently impossible)

Well, there is 3. All perfectly viable even for prepress.

I wouldn't say that PSP is viable for prepress for a start.

You can easily set up a concept and workflow that reduces the need for PS to the prepress branch while projects that do not go to print use other software...

Maybe you will see several systems using PSP for the web side of your business and a lesser number using PS. While the cost for a PSP license is usually way less than the cost of the hardware ths might become interesting for larger than one person businesses.

Michael

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

Can you buy a Buick transmission to replace a Geo's? No. Can you buy a Seagate hard drive to replace an IBM? Yes.

Can you buy commodity tires for both? Yes. Do they use the same fuel? Yes. Is the shift pattern the same? Yes. Can you buy commodity light bulbs and fuses for them?
Yes. And so on.

You can interchange computer power cords and rubber
feet, too, but I tried to stay away from such obviously
dumb superficial stuff.
You can assemble a computer with parts from 10 different companies - hard drive, motherboard, monitor, graphics
card, etc., etc. You can't do the same with cars.
Admit you used a lousy analogy & move on :-)

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

I don't know anyone who is "barely competent" and yet can assemble a computer.

Ever talk to anyone at Gateway?

No. I've talked to people who are barely competent
with computers, though.

It was a joke. Their tech support is laughable.

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a
big deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--
you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked),
or you did without.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?
Or is my memory failing?

phaedrus wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a
big deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--
you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked),
or you did without.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?
Or is my memory failing?

There were and I think there still may be clones available, but from specialist outlets.

Stuart

phaedrus wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

I don't know anyone who is "barely competent" and yet can assemble a computer.

Ever talk to anyone at Gateway?

No. I've talked to people who are barely competent
with computers, though.

It was a joke. Their tech support is laughable.

Anybody who actually knows anything about computers knows not to work for them or similar companies.

Stuart

Stuart wrote:

phaedrus wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

I don't know anyone who is "barely competent" and yet can assemble a computer.

Ever talk to anyone at Gateway?

No. I've talked to people who are barely competent
with computers, though.

It was a joke. Their tech support is laughable.

Anybody who actually knows anything about computers
knows not to work for them or similar companies.

I would hope so. Unfortunately, people are calling
these "techs" for help every day.

Stuart wrote:

phaedrus wrote:

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--
you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked),
or you did without.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?
Or is my memory failing?

There were and I think there still may be clones available, but from specialist outlets.

I should've Googled first...
http://www.lowendmac.com/clones/index.shtml

phaedrus writes:

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

A nearly unbeatable GUI and the whole concept of a small personal computer.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?
Or is my memory failing?

There were indeed, but then Apple got greedy again. It was never a large-scale thing, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:29:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
scribbled:

phaedrus writes:

Can you buy a Buick transmission to replace a Geo's? No. Can you buy a Seagate hard drive to replace an IBM? Yes.

Can you buy commodity tires for both? Yes. Do they use the same fuel?

You like the word 'commodity', unfortunately you don't appear to know what it means. As for the fuel, what if it's diesel or electric or an older model engine that requires lead or a new hydrogen engine?

Yes. Is the shift pattern the same? Yes. Can you buy commodity light

Shift patterns differ radically from manufacturer to manufacturer.

bulbs and fuses for them? Yes. And so on.

Your analogies suck.

Not so. I changed a modem the first year I owned a PC.

If you know what a modem is, you're not an average computer user (and if you know what a transmission is, you're not an average driver).

If you pretend your ludicrous statements are factual you're an average idiot.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:47:35 -0500, phaedrus
scribbled:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a
big deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

The home computer user market.

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--
you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked),
or you did without.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?

I don't believe there have ever been Apple clones.

Or is my memory failing?

"Voivod" wrote in message

I don't believe there have ever been Apple clones.

There were a few Apple clones of the IIe and Macintosh varieties.

"Voivod" wrote in message

Power Computing Corp made the best ones, but was gobbled back up by Apple. This was during the "between Jobs" era, specifically the mid-nineties when Apple had a completely irrational product line and was going down the tubes of avarice very quickly.

We still have a Power PC Mac clone running in our office (mainly out of curiosity). It was prbably the worst piece of crap we ever bought. HD failed after a month and it to them 3 weeks to ship us a new one. Slow, expensive (over $3K)... and they had the oh, so condescending attitude towards anything other than Macs. Good riddance...

"jjs" wrote in message

"Voivod" wrote in message

Power Computing Corp made the best ones, but was gobbled back up by Apple. This was during the "between Jobs" era, specifically the mid-nineties when Apple had a completely irrational product line and was going down the

tubes

of avarice very quickly.

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

We still have a Power PC Mac clone running in our office (mainly out of curiosity). It was prbably the worst piece of crap we ever bought. HD

failed

after a month and it to them 3 weeks to ship us a new one. Slow, expensive (over $3K)... and they had the oh, so condescending attitude towards anything other than Macs. Good riddance...

Funny you should say that, but Power Computing Corp. was planning to include Wintel clones in their lineup when Apple squashed them.

I do seem to remember that...We still have the Power PC. It's been running continously on a desk out of sight for about 3 years. Every now and then when we need to find an ancient file, I'll tap on the mouse and it comes back to life. It's too pokey to do much work on, but it has a helluva power supply...

"jjs" wrote in message

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

We still have a Power PC Mac clone running in our office (mainly out of curiosity). It was prbably the worst piece of crap we ever bought. HD

failed

after a month and it to them 3 weeks to ship us a new one. Slow,

expensive

(over $3K)... and they had the oh, so condescending attitude towards anything other than Macs. Good riddance...

Funny you should say that, but Power Computing Corp. was planning to

include

Wintel clones in their lineup when Apple squashed them.

I have never seen a technology die such a slow death.
All according to Bill Gates plan.

Are you the real Voivod?

Will the real Voivod post in please?

Where has the mighty one gone?

Do the gods take vacations?

Arts

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:29:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
scribbled:

phaedrus writes:

Can you buy a Buick transmission to replace a Geo's? No. Can you buy a Seagate hard drive to replace an IBM? Yes.

Can you buy commodity tires for both? Yes. Do they use the same fuel?

You like the word 'commodity', unfortunately you don't appear to know what it means. As for the fuel, what if it's diesel or electric or an older model engine that requires lead or a new hydrogen engine?

Yes. Is the shift pattern the same? Yes. Can you buy commodity light

Shift patterns differ radically from manufacturer to manufacturer.

bulbs and fuses for them? Yes. And so on.

Your analogies suck.

Not so. I changed a modem the first year I owned a PC.

If you know what a modem is, you're not an average computer user (and if you know what a transmission is, you're not an average driver).

If you pretend your ludicrous statements are factual you're an average idiot.

Voivod wrote:

phaedrus scribbled:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a
big deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

The home computer user market.

How big do you suppose that was, back then?

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--
you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked),
or you did without.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?

I don't believe there have ever been Apple clones.

http://www.lowendmac.com/clones/index.shtml

Wot? No Commodore Amiga?

Arts

I should've Googled first...
http://www.lowendmac.com/clones/index.shtml

"phaedrus" wrote in message

Voivod wrote:

phaedrus scribbled:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a
big deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

The home computer user market.

How big do you suppose that was, back then?

Apple never had a majority of any market. What killed their chances of doing so is the same thing that's killing them now. Greed. First they ripped off Xerox's GUI and then they
refused to license it to anyone. Apple got exactly what they deserved.

Rick

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

Is it a worry?
Heck, 'course it is. The public voted in terms of where they spent their money bypassing all socio-political systems, commercial systems, national steering groups and sub-committees/ You betcha it is a problem - everyone with a power ego was seriously disappointed Well, apart from Mr Gates.
Arts

erm - poor phrasing with no disrespect to Mr Gates

Arts

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:41:19 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hecate writes:

Flash is a useful; technology which, if used properly won't even be noticed by the "surfer".

It will at anything other than broadband speeds. It will also be noticed by surfers using secure systems, since they will have active component support turned off in their browsers for security reasons.
Thus, anyone with a slow connection (and such people are legion) or with security restrictions on his browser will not be able to use a site that depends on Flash.

The problem is not Flash, but the number of incompetent web designers.

Use of Flash is usually a pretty good indicator of incompetence. It's extremely difficult to find valid, objective justifications for any type of Flash content on a site.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

phaedrus writes:

How big do you suppose that was, back then?

Huge, relatively speaking. There were Macs on lots of desks where I worked long before PCs appeared. Unfortunately, Macs were overpriced, and too difficult to customize for specific environments. So slowly the PCs replaced them, first for engineers, then for everyone, first with MS-DOS, then GEM, DesqView, etc., then the first and later versions of Windows. And the rest is history.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best alternative now is PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.

Ted

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:03:29 -0500, phaedrus
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

phaedrus scribbled:

Mxsmanic wrote:

phaedrus writes:

It gave them a lever. Other companies that wrote
apps didn't have that kind of leverage. It was a
big deal.

Apple had much bigger levers, but it failed. Why?

Bigger than IBM? What lever did Apple have?

The home computer user market.

How big do you suppose that was, back then?

Back when? How far to go back? The Apple computer line was quite popular with families and schools for quite some time. Schools (and therefore the children who'd want computers) were very late in leaving the Apple world and switching over to PCs.

You don't suppose the IBM PC clone makers -
Compaq, etc. - had anything to do with that?

Sure they did. Of course, Apple didn't allow clones--
you bought from Apple (at whatever price they asked),
or you did without.

There were clones for a while, weren't there?

I don't believe there have ever been Apple clones.

http://www.lowendmac.com/clones/index.shtml

Didn't know that... thanks.

Mxsmanic ...

...
There are just as many alternatives to Windows as there are to Photoshop, PostScript, and PDF (in other words, there are virtually no alternatives to any of these).

I agree with your other points, but you're wrong about Windoze: it is the one entirely optional component in pre-press. You might recall that the Macintosh was the first home, and remains the most productive home, of Illustrator and Photoshop (not to mention Quark XPress, ATM, Type 1 fonts, PageMaker, etc). PostScript first saw light of day as a crucial enabling component of the Macintosh office.

--Toby

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:10:50 -0400, Ted in comp.publish.prepress wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best alternative now is PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.

The GIMP version 2, is a good replacement to Photoshop, especially now that CMYK has been incorporated, and which is being constantly improved by the developers.

The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable, which makes Photoshop actions, much much weaker, to that which one can do with GIMP. AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into with Photoshop -- And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop. However the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro. But if people stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it is.

Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so people don't like changing their minds overnight -- Even if another product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature, and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking change.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment. Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.

marathon writes:

The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable ...

Perl is useless to anyone who doesn't know it, which includes just about all prepress professionals, and indeed just about anyone outside the world of IT.

AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into with Photoshop ...

Nobody uses those, either. Why do computer geeks always think that everyone wants to write programs? Have you ever noticed that half of every UNIX book seems to describe scripting, as if that were the only real purpose for the OS?

And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more
actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop.

See above.

However the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro.

And it's a hurdle not worth surmounting. And nobody cares about scripting.

But if people
stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it is.

If they stick with Photoshop, they don't lose time and energy learning something new that at best is still dramatically inferior to the Photoshop they were already using.

Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so people don't like changing their minds overnight ...

But more importantly, it does exactly what professional users required, and everyone is familiar with it, and everyone has it. Why change?

Even if another
product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature, and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking change.

Most people don't like to change just for the sake of changing; it isn't very logical.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Toby Thain writes:

I agree with your other points, but you're wrong about Windoze: it is the one entirely optional component in pre-press.

If you have machines dedicated to prepress, that is true. If you need to use the same machines for other purposes (such as general business applications), Windows is the only serious option, since almost every microcomputer application in the world is written for Windows.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I appologize for activation.

There, I've said it.

8

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Nobody uses those, either.

Huh?

The single largest user base of AppleScript is in the publishing industry. We use Applescript extensively to streamline our workflow, perform repetitive tasks and eliminate human error.

djb

Dave Balderstone writes:

The single largest user base of AppleScript is in the publishing industry. We use Applescript extensively to streamline our workflow, perform repetitive tasks and eliminate human error.

I was thinking mainly of VB.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

I was thinking mainly of VB.

Oh. VB is a curse from Satan.

Mxsmanic ...

Toby Thain writes:

I agree with your other points, but you're wrong about Windoze: it is the one entirely optional component in pre-press.

If you have machines dedicated to prepress, that is true. If you need to use the same machines for other purposes (such as general business applications), Windows is the only serious option, since almost every microcomputer application in the world is written for Windows.

One or two useful things also run on Mac OS X. Enough to run the design/advertising/marketing agency I work for, anyway. It's also nice not to have to worry about viruses, etc.

--Toby

Toby Thain writes:

One or two useful things also run on Mac OS X. Enough to run the design/advertising/marketing agency I work for, anyway.

If your needs are modest, you may be able to get by with Macs alone. But there's always the possibility that one day you'll absolutely require an application that runs only under Windows, at which point you must either invest in one or more Windows machines (although you need not throw away the Macs, of course).

It's also nice not to have to worry about viruses, etc.

Using Macs does not eliminate the need to worry about viruses, and if you think otherwise, you are putting yourself at considerable risk.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

[sic]

Perl is useless to anyone who doesn't know it, which includes just about all prepress professionals, and indeed just about anyone outside the world of IT.

I know a bit of Perl. Actually, just about enough to know VB is crap compared to it. And I know Active Perl takes a lot of time to download on a dial-up connection. :-)

Nobody uses those, either. Why do computer geeks always think that everyone wants to write programs? Have you ever noticed that half of every UNIX book seems to describe scripting, as if that were the only real purpose for the OS?

[sic]

There's no alternative to scripting when you need productivity (and sadly so). Photoshop may not need a lot of scripting, but programs like InDy need a lot of it if you want to be productive. If you fail to learn even basic scripting using VBScript you'll soon find that those
computer-geeks-who-happen-to-know-a-bit-about-prepress are getting more jobs than you do.

I write and use scripts a lot (though not for PS). One example is footnotes. If you insert a footnote reference somewhere in your book and need correct numbering, nothing beats scripting. One InDy plug-in that I know of (the InFnote) does such a crappy job that it can hardly even be called automation. The last book I did (700+ footnotes) would have taken more than four days if it weren't for scripting. With scripts, it took me about half that time.

Besides, scripting is not all that hard to learn (especially Perl, basic functions of which took me about a day to learn).

[sic]

Yes. And there are alternatives: JScript, JavaScript, Perl, PHP (practically anything that's got a scripting host). VBScript is quite powerful when it comes to text handling. Not quite as Perl, but very powerful nevertheless. Also, VBScript supports Unicode text in the script itself which is not the case with Perl.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

I was thinking mainly of VB.

Oh. VB is a curse from Satan.

Branko Vukelic writes:

Yes. And there are alternatives: JScript, JavaScript, Perl, PHP (practically anything that's got a scripting host). VBScript is quite powerful when it comes to text handling. Not quite as Perl, but very powerful nevertheless. Also, VBScript supports Unicode text in the script itself which is not the case with Perl.

And how is any of this useful for Photoshop?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Branko Vukelic writes:

If you fail to learn even basic
scripting using VBScript you'll soon find that those
computer-geeks-who-happen-to-know-a-bit-about-prepress are getting more jobs than you do.

I already know scripting, but I've never had occasion to use it. Every task is different, so scripting wouldn't help me, and even actions that I occasionally repeat are so simple that scripts would not be worth the time required to write them.

I write and use scripts a lot (though not for PS).

This does not surprise me.

One example is footnotes. If you insert a footnote reference somewhere in your book and need correct numbering, nothing beats scripting.

I rarely need numbered footnotes; I've done them by hand when required. It is indeed very time consuming. I suppose I could write a script for it to do it more quickly if I really had to do it often. Not too many people prepare footnotes these days, however (it's even more of a pain for the author than it is for prepress).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

And how is any of this useful for Photoshop?

Oh, it isn't. You should never, ever look a scripting any of your apps, especially Photoshop. It will make you uncompetitive. While your competitors are wasting their time learning all that scripting stuff, and writing and implementing scripts, you can be raking in the dough and stealing their customers.

I rue the day, 11 years ago, that I started automating parts of our workflow. Who knew it would come to where I am now?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Branko Vukelic writes:

If you fail to learn even basic
scripting using VBScript you'll soon find that those
computer-geeks-who-happen-to-know-a-bit-about-prepress are getting more jobs
than you do.

I already know scripting, but I've never had occasion to use it. Every task is different, so scripting wouldn't help me, and even actions that I occasionally repeat are so simple that scripts would not be worth the time required to write them.

Yes, yes, I agree. I never use scripting in PS either, although I could imagine a few scenarios where some scripting could prove useful. (Like batch resize-sharpen-rename combos and such...)

I write and use scripts a lot (though not for PS).

This does not surprise me.

I shouldn't, really. :-)

One example is footnotes. If you insert a footnote reference somewhere in your book and need correct numbering, nothing beats scripting.

I rarely need numbered footnotes; I've done them by hand when required. It is indeed very time consuming. I suppose I could write a script for it to do it more quickly if I really had to do it often. Not too many people prepare footnotes these days, however (it's even more of a pain for the author than it is for prepress).

Authors can insert footnotes at will in apps like MS Word. Footnotes become a problem with those popular prepress apps like InDy and QuarkXPress, tho scripting can pull off most of the missing tasks. I was even able to create a primitive Japanese typesetting scripts which enable me to set Japanese text in InDy (a task that is otherwise impossible). And I can only imagine how many things are not being done simply because people are waiting for those updates (or paying big bucks for badly written plug-ins) istead of writing some scripts.

Branko Vukelic writes:

Authors can insert footnotes at will in apps like MS Word.

Yes, but that requires a lot more thought than cute boxes around text and WordArt.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I've never had a strong position for product activation on either side until today. My Windows XP was buggy so I rolled it back 1 restore point. A short time later I started photoshop only to find out it requires a "repair" re-activation as it had noticed the system changed. No big deal right?..Except when I try via the internet it fails, and when I use telephone activation it fails, and customer support is down for both yesterday and today according to the message!! So, no photoshop, no support, and I'm just lucky I don't have any projects due for tomorrow as I'm literally "up the creek". Why do legitimate users have to go through this crap, while all the pirated software is activation free anyway?
ok...done venting.
-damian

marathon ...

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:10:50 -0400, Ted in comp.publish.prepress wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best alternative now is PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.

The GIMP version 2, is a good replacement to Photoshop, especially now that CMYK has been incorporated, and which is being constantly improved by the developers.

The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable, which makes Photoshop actions, much much weaker, to that which one can do with GIMP. AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into with Photoshop -- And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop. However the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro. But if people stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it is.

Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so people don't like changing their minds overnight -- Even if another product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature, and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking change.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment. Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.

damian writes:

I've never had a strong position for product activation on either side until today. My Windows XP was buggy so I rolled it back 1 restore point. A short time later I started photoshop only to find out it requires a "repair" re-activation as it had noticed the system changed. No big deal right?..Except when I try via the internet it fails, and when I use telephone activation it fails, and customer support is down for both yesterday and today according to the message!! So, no photoshop, no support, and I'm just lucky I don't have any projects due for tomorrow as I'm literally "up the creek". Why do legitimate users have to go through this crap, while all the pirated software is activation free anyway?
ok...done venting.

You can always sue Adobe. With a good lawyer, you might win, and in any case the bad publicity Would probably cost Adobe more than the lawsuit. The more Adobe's mistakes are publicized, the more they will be motivated to fix them.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

(damian) wrote in message news:...

I've never had a strong position for product activation on either side until today. My Windows XP was buggy so I rolled it back 1 restore point. A short time later I started photoshop only to find out it requires a "repair" re-activation as it had noticed the system changed. No big deal right?..Except when I try via the internet it fails, and when I use telephone activation it fails, and customer support is down for both yesterday and today according to the message!! So, no photoshop, no support, and I'm just lucky I don't have any projects due for tomorrow as I'm literally "up the creek".

Q.E.D.

Why do legitimate users have to go through this crap, while all the pirated software is activation free anyway?
ok...done venting.

--Toby

-damian
...

marathon ...

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:10:50 -0400, Ted in comp.publish.prepress wrote:

I disagree. There are good actually very good alternatives to Photoshop.

Huh? I can't think of one. Perhaps you have some examples?

I loved Live Picture, a great app but sadly discontinued. The best alternative now is PhotoRetouch Pro from Binuscan, Inc.

The GIMP version 2, is a good replacement to Photoshop, especially now that CMYK has been incorporated, and which is being constantly improved by the developers.

The real advantage to GIMP, is it's perl scriptiable, which makes Photoshop actions, much much weaker, to that which one can do with GIMP. AppleScript and VB are considerably weaker in what they can hook into with Photoshop -- And then there is ScriptFu in the GIMP, probably more actions available there, than anyone could find in Photoshop. However the GIMPs interface does take some getting used to. That's often the biggest hurdle for people used to Photoshop or PShop Pro. But if people stick long enough with the GIMP, most are impressed with how powerful it is.

Due to the fact that Photoshop is considerably older, it has a captive audience with a vested interest in using/promoting Photoshop, so people don't like changing their minds overnight -- Even if another product is as competitive or maybe even slightly better. Human nature, and people being used to what they're comfortable with, and not liking change.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment. Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.

Mxsmanic ...

Toby Thain writes:

One or two useful things also run on Mac OS X. Enough to run the design/advertising/marketing agency I work for, anyway.

If your needs are modest, you may be able to get by with Macs alone. But there's always the possibility that one day you'll absolutely require an application that runs only under Windows, at which point you must either invest in one or more Windows machines (although you need not throw away the Macs, of course).

You must be joking. It seems only recently that Windoze has had ports of Illustrator, Photoshop, XPress etc. (Just to mention the "on topic" packages.) There's this handy little thing called Linux, too... very nice for mission critical things like mail servers, web servers, gateways, routers, file servers, databases, etc. Some even swear by it on the desktop.

It's also nice not to have to worry about viruses, etc.

Using Macs does not eliminate the need to worry about viruses, and if you think otherwise, you are putting yourself at considerable risk.

Nowhere near the risk I'd be running by betting my business on Windoze. You're welcome to it.

Each to his own.

--T

Mxsmanic ...

Branko Vukelic writes:

If you fail to learn even basic
scripting using VBScript you'll soon find that those
computer-geeks-who-happen-to-know-a-bit-about-prepress are getting more jobs than you do.

I already know scripting, but I've never had occasion to use it. Every task is different, so scripting wouldn't help me, and even actions that I occasionally repeat are so simple that scripts would not be worth the time required to write them.

I write and use scripts a lot (though not for PS).

This does not surprise me.

One example is footnotes. If you insert a footnote reference somewhere in your book and need correct numbering, nothing beats scripting.

I rarely need numbered footnotes; I've done them by hand when required. It is indeed very time consuming. I suppose I could write a script for it to do it more quickly if I really had to do it often. Not too many people prepare footnotes these days, however (it's even more of a pain for the author than it is for prepress).

It's amusing to contrast - at least to me :) - that while InDesign is essentially a GUI layout editor that has gained scriptability, its technological organ-donor TeX is at heart a powerful language interpreter that just happens to have typesetting as its output.

Footnotes, indexing, powerful macros, table layout, not to mention top notch mathematical setting are the semi-automated features that make TeX indispensable.

TeX is the "Perl" of typesetting markup. There is very little you can't make it do. Hard to imagine InDesign being able to change its character class tables! Can ID do multi-pass setting? I know it has strict limits to things like breakability control; and no concept of "glue".

One other interesting feature TeX has had for 25-odd years is generalised ligatures, described through extended font metrics files. Desktop typesetting briefly glimpsed this in QuickDraw GX, long abandoned, but only recently has the capability taken firm root, via OpenType.

There is nothing new under the sun?

--Toby

FREE Illustrator and Photoshop plugins:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

Toby Thain writes:

You must be joking. It seems only recently that Windoze has had ports of Illustrator, Photoshop, XPress etc.

These represent a vanishingly small percentage of the applications used in general business.

There's this handy little thing called Linux, too... very nice for mission critical things like mail servers, web servers, gateways, routers, file servers, databases, etc. Some even swear by it on the desktop.

It's not nearly as nice as UNIX for these purposes (except perhaps for the desktop, but then Windows would be better).

Nowhere near the risk I'd be running by betting my business on Windoze. You're welcome to it.

You're more likely to be hit than I am, because you consider yourself safe, whereas I know that I am not.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

You must be joking. It seems only recently that Windoze has had ports of Illustrator, Photoshop, XPress etc.

These represent a vanishingly small percentage of the applications used in general business.

There's this handy little thing called Linux, too... very nice for mission critical things like mail servers, web servers, gateways, routers, file servers, databases, etc. Some even swear by it on the desktop.

It's not nearly as nice as UNIX for these purposes (except perhaps for the desktop, but then Windows would be better).

Nowhere near the risk I'd be running by betting my business on Windoze. You're welcome to it.

You're more likely to be hit than I am, because you consider yourself safe, whereas I know that I am not.

How about that spyware crap. Yuk

Ted

He-he. I have never encountered that. Not that I have too much experience, tho. Well, I live in a fairly conservative environment and people tend to stick to good ol' footnotes, endnotes and such. Maybe a little more thought *is* neccesary, but authors are *supposed* to think, aren't they? OTOH, maybe I'm just being conservative. ;-)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Branko Vukelic writes:

Authors can insert footnotes at will in apps like MS Word.

Yes, but that requires a lot more thought than cute boxes around text and WordArt.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic ...

Toby Thain writes:

You must be joking. It seems only recently that Windoze has had ports of Illustrator, Photoshop, XPress etc.

These represent a vanishingly small percentage of the applications used in general business.

True. But OpenOffice is catching up. And who on Earth would run a M$ database! And the poor suckers who chose to subscribe to "M$ Money" are what started this whole thread.

There's this handy little thing called Linux, too... very nice for mission critical things like mail servers, web servers, gateways, routers, file servers, databases, etc. Some even swear by it on the desktop.

It's not nearly as nice as UNIX for these purposes (except perhaps for the desktop, but then Windows would be better).

That's fine, I run UNIX on servers (and like VMS) too. I had no idea I was speaking to someone aware of the distinction. I'll spare you any more Windoze bashing then...

--Toby

Toby Thain writes:

True. But OpenOffice is catching up.

It has been catching up for years.

And who on Earth would run a M$ database!

The same sort of person who would buy everything at WalMart. It has its advantages and disadvantages.

And the poor suckers who chose to subscribe to "M$ Money" are what started this whole thread.

I have Microsoft Money (a very old version), but I never subscribed to anything. I use it for business and personal accounting (sole proprietorship). I take my own backups.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic ...

Toby Thain writes:

I agree with your other points, but you're wrong about Windoze: it is the one entirely optional component in pre-press.

If you have machines dedicated to prepress, that is true. If you need to use the same machines for other purposes (such as general business applications), Windows is the only serious option, since almost every microcomputer application in the world is written for Windows.

Sterling Ball, for one, doesn't agree:

\\
Sterling Ball ... is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings... since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale.

In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.

Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

Ball's IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat's version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla's Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn't be duplicated by open source. Ball, whose father, Ernie, founded the company, says the transition was a breeze, and since then he's been happy to extol the virtues of open-source software to anyone who asks. He spoke with CNET News.com about his experience.

[ see http://news.com.com/Rockin%27+on+without+Microsoft/2008-1082 _3-5065859.html?tag=nl
]
//

I'll have to go out and buy a set of Super Slinkies in honor of his bold move...

I spend more time (as production manager) dealing with problems on workstations linked to web surfing, TSR overload (somebody please explain why anyone would intentionally install freakin' Weatherbug) virus and spyware deletion, and general maintenance of machines run by people who can't wait to get to work to play Marbles or Solitaire, than dealing with prepress workflow issues. I laud Mr. Ball for having the guts to stick it to MS as well as the modern employee's sense of entertainment entitlement in the workplace. Of course, if we followed his model, we'd be putting the papers out using GIMP and Wordperfect, and half of our staff would quit... maybe not that bad an idea....

\\
Sterling Ball ... is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings... since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale.

In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.

Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

Ball's IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat's version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla's Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn't be duplicated by open source. Ball, whose father, Ernie, founded the company, says the transition was a breeze, and since then he's been happy to extol the virtues of open-source software to anyone who asks. He spoke with CNET News.com about his experience.

[ see

http://news.com.com/Rockin%27+on+without+Microsoft/2008-1082 _3-5065859.html?tag=nl

]
//

Toby Thain writes:

Sterling Ball, for one, doesn't agree:

Sterling Ball's opinion on IT is about as useful as my opinion on premium guitar strings.

Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

I can understand how he feels, but from a pure business standpoint, blowing off all the major software in the world because your feelings are hurt is a really bad decision.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Dennis Gordon writes:

... TSR overload ...

TSRs? Are they still running MS-DOS?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

That's what I've always called those accessories that Terminate and Stay Resident in the taskbar. Not sure what the proper term is, but that's what I'm talkin' about...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Dennis Gordon writes:

... TSR overload ...

TSRs? Are they still running MS-DOS?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Dennis Gordon writes:

That's what I've always called those accessories that Terminate and Stay Resident in the taskbar. Not sure what the proper term is, but that's what I'm talkin' about...

They're just processes like any other under Windows. The old TSRs were actually locked into memory; today under Windows it's extremely rare for an application to lock itself into physical memory (although it can be done if it's really required, e.g., for real-time applications or I/O buffers).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Thanks for the clarification. What I was going for is all the crap that people have running in the background taking cycles from the processor for no good reason, as well as Windows themes, screensavers and the like. A Windows box never runs as well as it does the first day after I put it together. In a couple of weeks it's starting to get bogged down by simply being hooked up to the network, the internet and all the uninvited fun that lies within...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Dennis Gordon writes:

That's what I've always called those accessories that Terminate and Stay Resident in the taskbar. Not sure what the proper term is, but that's

what

I'm talkin' about...

They're just processes like any other under Windows. The old TSRs were actually locked into memory; today under Windows it's extremely rare for an application to lock itself into physical memory (although it can be done if it's really required, e.g., for real-time applications or I/O buffers).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" posted:
"...
but from a pure business standpoint,
blowing off all the major software in the world because your feelings are hurt is a really bad decision.
...."

Are you sure ?

IMHO Strerling Ball did *exactly* the correct thing ... business-wise ... for his situation. You ... on the other hand ... might not be able to do the same because of the needs of the "prepress industry." But ...then again ... maybe you actually could if you tried.

Just because some software vendor's products (Micro$cum's, or Adobe's, or anybody's) are highly entrenched in an industry does not mean

(1) That they are the best products (or the best way) to do the job, or

(2) That they are the *only* way to do the job.

Think about it ...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Toby Thain writes:

Sterling Ball, for one, doesn't agree:

Sterling Ball's opinion on IT is about as useful as my opinion on premium guitar strings.

Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

I can understand how he feels, but from a pure business standpoint, blowing off all the major software in the world because your feelings are hurt is a really bad decision.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

RSD99 writes:

Think about it ...

I have, and so I still run Windows. Emotion is not a factor in my decisions.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:58:00 GMT, "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. What I was going for is all the crap that people have running in the background taking cycles from the processor for no good reason, as well as Windows themes, screensavers and the like. A Windows box never runs as well as it does the first day after I put it together. In a couple of weeks it's starting to get bogged down by simply being hooked up to the network, the internet and all the uninvited fun that lies within...

True, but it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to go Hitler on their asses and block all non-work-related Net access, all downloads, e-mail and whatnot. It's called "network administration" <G>.

If you are a nice guy, they can have a terminal in the lunchroom on which to play, get porn, and gamble. It won't be on your network, however.

I don't really "get", despite 20 years in computers, how employees are allowed to play, modify and otherwise screw up company computers and system with irrelevant crap. By way of "analog" example, I used to proof and layout copy for a major newspaper (anyone remember the "Harris" and ATEX proprietary quasi-Unix/VAX systems?), but I didn't read it at my desk. I took my comp copy and read it on the bus, like most civilians.

I did read the articles I had to proof, naturally, but it's not the same and you don't process for content when you are proofing for style and spelling and what not.

I mean, a little latitude is to be human, but connect the average wage slave to a T1 and he becomes King o' the Downloads...when he should be working!

R.

Fine in theory, but...

There are about 60 employees in my company. About 10 of them are in production, which I manage. Due to my brilliant implementation of PDF workflow and my excellent communication with our printers ("...Now when's this paper really going on press, ol' buddy"?) we have dramatically reduced the stress and tedium levels in getting our papers and magazines out the door. We're publishing up to 600 tab pages a week with a smaller crew than we had putting out half the pages 6 years ago. The people in my department often have time on their hands because we have become quite efficient at moving things out of here. Some of us use that time to hone their Photoshop and InDesign skills. Others would rather play Marbles and cruise Ebay. I don't really care, as long as the work is done and the quality is good. Now those in production have the advantage of my presence, ensuring that when they pick up some virus from noodling around, or keep crashing because they have IM, Real Player, Weatherbug and 145 spyware registry keys all competing for their computer's attention, I'm right their to set things right and gently admonish them, again, to keep this junk off of their machines. I've built and maintained almost 20 machines in the past 5 years, and they all work fine.

Now the rest of the company is more of a problem. Receptionists, salespeople, circulation grunts, interns. Multiple users of crummy old boxes, sending each other stupid emails, careless surfing, opening suspicious attachments, la-di-da... and, of course, the useless Windows themes and screensavers that the easily bored find so amusing. It never occurs to these dolts that their computer could be running better. They just live with these buggy messes, until it takes so long to do something they demand a new machine. That's when I spend half a day bringing it back to life, trying to save the firm the $399 for a new cheap Dell.

My company has a loose corporate culture for a place with $10 million yearly revenues. Dogs and children and babies wander around; there's no dress code. We have an employee manual and rules concerning sexual harassment and employee dismissal that no one has ever looked at. Wages are low, and we allow employees amusing themselves at their workstations because if this was a gulag, people wouldn't tolerate the boredom. I've seen plenty of those. As a musician, I often play the corporate parties where the companies let their underlings get down by giving them a free hamburger while they listen to the rock and roll music. Whatta bunch of stiffs. Sexual subtexts, social politicking, hierarchal ass kissing. I don't know how these people can drag themselves to their dreary cubicles. I like to think that our way works better, even if it means accepting what appears to be a waste of time. Of course, I'm a patient person. A less tolerant manager wouldn't put up with this horse shit. But we're having fun, and making money. I can't argue with that...

True, but it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to go Hitler on their asses and block all non-work-related Net access, all downloads, e-mail and whatnot. It's called "network administration" <G>.

If you are a nice guy, they can have a terminal in the lunchroom on which to play, get porn, and gamble. It won't be on your network, however.

I don't really "get", despite 20 years in computers, how employees are allowed to play, modify and otherwise screw up company computers and system with irrelevant crap. By way of "analog" example, I used to proof and layout copy for a major newspaper (anyone remember the "Harris" and ATEX proprietary quasi-Unix/VAX systems?), but I didn't read it at my desk. I took my comp copy and read it on the bus, like most civilians.

I did read the articles I had to proof, naturally, but it's not the same and you don't process for content when you are proofing for style and spelling and what not.

I mean, a little latitude is to be human, but connect the average wage slave to a T1 and he becomes King o' the Downloads...when he should be working!

R.

Hey Dennis, any job openings in your dept?

I work for a media company and use the entire Creative Suite for my production - building ROP, tab, adverts, newsletters, etc. Trying to convince the CEO to at least upgrade to Acrobat 6.0 has been tough even though my presentation on that had him drooling - it's a money matter. But shit, sometimes you have to spend money to make money! Acrobat 6 has some awesome friggin' features that go wasted when only one person in the company - myself - uses it. I spent my own money on the Creative Suite this way I owned it and not the company. All my other graphic dept colleagues are still using PS 6. I ain't knockin it but with Version Cue and all of the other interactive features between InDesign, Illustrator, ImageReady etc the production could really soar! AND of course, a possible raise for myself for stepping up production at a minimal cost has definately crossed my mind.

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

Fine in theory, but...

There are about 60 employees in my company. About 10 of them are in production, which I manage. Due to my brilliant implementation of PDF workflow and my excellent communication with our printers ("...Now when's this paper really going on press, ol' buddy"?) we have dramatically

reduced

the stress and tedium levels in getting our papers and magazines out the door. We're publishing up to 600 tab pages a week with a smaller crew than we had putting out half the pages 6 years ago. The people in my department often have time on their hands because we have become quite efficient at moving things out of here. Some of us use that time to hone their

Photoshop

and InDesign skills. Others would rather play Marbles and cruise Ebay. I don't really care, as long as the work is done and the quality is good.

Now

those in production have the advantage of my presence, ensuring that when they pick up some virus from noodling around, or keep crashing because

they

have IM, Real Player, Weatherbug and 145 spyware registry keys all

competing

for their computer's attention, I'm right their to set things right and gently admonish them, again, to keep this junk off of their machines. I've built and maintained almost 20 machines in the past 5 years, and they all work fine.

Now the rest of the company is more of a problem. Receptionists, salespeople, circulation grunts, interns. Multiple users of crummy old boxes, sending each other stupid emails, careless surfing, opening suspicious attachments, la-di-da... and, of course, the useless Windows themes and screensavers that the easily bored find so amusing. It never occurs to these dolts that their computer could be running better. They

just

live with these buggy messes, until it takes so long to do something they demand a new machine. That's when I spend half a day bringing it back to life, trying to save the firm the $399 for a new cheap Dell.
My company has a loose corporate culture for a place with $10 million

yearly

revenues. Dogs and children and babies wander around; there's no dress

code.

We have an employee manual and rules concerning sexual harassment and employee dismissal that no one has ever looked at. Wages are low, and we allow employees amusing themselves at their workstations because if this

was

a gulag, people wouldn't tolerate the boredom. I've seen plenty of those.

As

a musician, I often play the corporate parties where the companies let

their

underlings get down by giving them a free hamburger while they listen to

the

rock and roll music. Whatta bunch of stiffs. Sexual subtexts, social politicking, hierarchal ass kissing. I don't know how these people can

drag

themselves to their dreary cubicles. I like to think that our way works better, even if it means accepting what appears to be a waste of time. Of course, I'm a patient person. A less tolerant manager wouldn't put up with this horse shit. But we're having fun, and making money. I can't argue

with

that...

True, but it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to go Hitler on their asses and block all non-work-related Net access, all downloads, e-mail and whatnot. It's called "network administration" <G>.

If you are a nice guy, they can have a terminal in the lunchroom on which to play, get porn, and gamble. It won't be on your network, however.

I don't really "get", despite 20 years in computers, how employees are allowed to play, modify and otherwise screw up company computers and system with irrelevant crap. By way of "analog" example, I used to proof and layout copy for a major newspaper (anyone remember the "Harris" and ATEX proprietary quasi-Unix/VAX systems?), but I didn't read it at my desk. I took my comp copy and read it on the bus, like most civilians.

I did read the articles I had to proof, naturally, but it's not the same and you don't process for content when you are proofing for style and spelling and what not.

I mean, a little latitude is to be human, but connect the average wage slave to a T1 and he becomes King o' the Downloads...when he should be working!

R.

(see fot of post)
"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

Fine in theory, but...

There are about 60 employees in my company. About 10 of them are in production, which I manage. Due to my brilliant implementation of PDF workflow and my excellent communication with our printers ("...Now when's this paper really going on press, ol' buddy"?) we have dramatically

reduced

the stress and tedium levels in getting our papers and magazines out the door. We're publishing up to 600 tab pages a week with a smaller crew than we had putting out half the pages 6 years ago. The people in my department often have time on their hands because we have become quite efficient at moving things out of here. Some of us use that time to hone their

Photoshop

and InDesign skills. Others would rather play Marbles and cruise Ebay. I don't really care, as long as the work is done and the quality is good.

Now

those in production have the advantage of my presence, ensuring that when they pick up some virus from noodling around, or keep crashing because

they

have IM, Real Player, Weatherbug and 145 spyware registry keys all

competing

for their computer's attention, I'm right their to set things right and gently admonish them, again, to keep this junk off of their machines. I've built and maintained almost 20 machines in the past 5 years, and they all work fine.

Now the rest of the company is more of a problem. Receptionists, salespeople, circulation grunts, interns. Multiple users of crummy old boxes, sending each other stupid emails, careless surfing, opening suspicious attachments, la-di-da... and, of course, the useless Windows themes and screensavers that the easily bored find so amusing. It never occurs to these dolts that their computer could be running better. They

just

live with these buggy messes, until it takes so long to do something they demand a new machine. That's when I spend half a day bringing it back to life, trying to save the firm the $399 for a new cheap Dell.
My company has a loose corporate culture for a place with $10 million

yearly

revenues. Dogs and children and babies wander around; there's no dress

code.

We have an employee manual and rules concerning sexual harassment and employee dismissal that no one has ever looked at. Wages are low, and we allow employees amusing themselves at their workstations because if this

was

a gulag, people wouldn't tolerate the boredom. I've seen plenty of those.

As

a musician, I often play the corporate parties where the companies let

their

underlings get down by giving them a free hamburger while they listen to

the

rock and roll music. Whatta bunch of stiffs. Sexual subtexts, social politicking, hierarchal ass kissing. I don't know how these people can

drag

themselves to their dreary cubicles. I like to think that our way works better, even if it means accepting what appears to be a waste of time. Of course, I'm a patient person. A less tolerant manager wouldn't put up with this horse shit. But we're having fun, and making money. I can't argue

with

that...

True, but it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to go Hitler on their asses and block all non-work-related Net access, all downloads, e-mail and whatnot. It's called "network administration" <G>.

If you are a nice guy, they can have a terminal in the lunchroom on which to play, get porn, and gamble. It won't be on your network, however.

I don't really "get", despite 20 years in computers, how employees are allowed to play, modify and otherwise screw up company computers and system with irrelevant crap. By way of "analog" example, I used to proof and layout copy for a major newspaper (anyone remember the "Harris" and ATEX proprietary quasi-Unix/VAX systems?), but I didn't read it at my desk. I took my comp copy and read it on the bus, like most civilians.

I did read the articles I had to proof, naturally, but it's not the same and you don't process for content when you are proofing for style and spelling and what not.

I mean, a little latitude is to be human, but connect the average wage slave to a T1 and he becomes King o' the Downloads...when he should be working!

R.

erm - any vacancies?

Arts

Hmmm - I wonder if BSA'a policy is to hammer legit companies that foul up rather than the pirate sources of software?

Is one an easier target than the other?

This does seem IMHO a wee bit OTT (I mean Ernie Ball thing)

Arts

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

I'll have to go out and buy a set of Super Slinkies in honor of his bold move...

I spend more time (as production manager) dealing with problems on workstations linked to web surfing, TSR overload (somebody please explain why anyone would intentionally install freakin' Weatherbug) virus and spyware deletion, and general maintenance of machines run by people who can't wait to get to work to play Marbles or Solitaire, than dealing with prepress workflow issues. I laud Mr. Ball for having the guts to stick it

to

MS as well as the modern employee's sense of entertainment entitlement in the workplace. Of course, if we followed his model, we'd be putting the papers out using GIMP and Wordperfect, and half of our staff would quit... maybe not that bad an idea....

\\
Sterling Ball ... is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings... since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale.

In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.

Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

Ball's IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat's version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla's Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn't be duplicated by open source. Ball, whose father, Ernie, founded the company, says the transition was a breeze, and since then he's been happy to extol the virtues of open-source software to anyone who asks. He spoke with CNET News.com about his experience.

[ see

http://news.com.com/Rockin%27+on+without+Microsoft/2008-1082 _3-5065859.html?tag=nl

]
//

We're currently upgrading to PS/CS and InDy CS for everyone. We have one copy of Acro 6. I like it enough, but v5 is easier to use (particularly when it comes to bitmap export) so most of us have that.

As resident tech genius (that's a laugh) I get to order all the new hardware and software, and I have a free hand which is nice. Only real bonehead move was purchasing the IPIX 3D system for our Nikon. Never got it to work right, camera got stolen and the IPIX licenses expired before we even got one breathtaking 3D shot up...$400 not well spent.
Otherwise, we've found that staying current and legal with Adobe has its advantages. Still plugging away with QXP4.1. Got one version of QXP6 which is used only to open and resave the occasional client file to v5 so that we can reopen and resave to v4. Thankfully that only happens once in a great while....

This generosity on my company's part will, of course come to an end if sales start to tank... but it's fun for now...

I can't get anyone to seriously try InCopy with InDesign, let alone Version Cue. I'd like to try, but we're a bit too hodgepodge late-minute deadline oriented to make it work coherently...

"Brooklyn NYC" wrote in message

Hey Dennis, any job openings in your dept?

I work for a media company and use the entire Creative Suite for my production - building ROP, tab, adverts, newsletters, etc. Trying to convince the CEO to at least upgrade to Acrobat 6.0 has been tough even though my presentation on that had him drooling - it's a money matter. But shit, sometimes you have to spend money to make money! Acrobat 6 has some awesome friggin' features that go wasted when only one person in the company - myself - uses it. I spent my own money on the Creative Suite

this

way I owned it and not the company. All my other graphic dept colleagues

are

still using PS 6. I ain't knockin it but with Version Cue and all of the other interactive features between InDesign, Illustrator, ImageReady etc

the

production could really soar! AND of course, a possible raise for myself

for

stepping up production at a minimal cost has definately crossed my mind.
"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

Fine in theory, but...

There are about 60 employees in my company. About 10 of them are in production, which I manage. Due to my brilliant implementation of PDF workflow and my excellent communication with our printers ("...Now

when's

this paper really going on press, ol' buddy"?) we have dramatically

reduced

the stress and tedium levels in getting our papers and magazines out the door. We're publishing up to 600 tab pages a week with a smaller crew

than

we had putting out half the pages 6 years ago. The people in my

department

often have time on their hands because we have become quite efficient at moving things out of here. Some of us use that time to hone their

Photoshop

and InDesign skills. Others would rather play Marbles and cruise Ebay. I don't really care, as long as the work is done and the quality is good.

Now

those in production have the advantage of my presence, ensuring that

when

they pick up some virus from noodling around, or keep crashing because

they

have IM, Real Player, Weatherbug and 145 spyware registry keys all

competing

for their computer's attention, I'm right their to set things right and gently admonish them, again, to keep this junk off of their machines.

I've

built and maintained almost 20 machines in the past 5 years, and they

all

work fine.

Now the rest of the company is more of a problem. Receptionists, salespeople, circulation grunts, interns. Multiple users of crummy old boxes, sending each other stupid emails, careless surfing, opening suspicious attachments, la-di-da... and, of course, the useless Windows themes and screensavers that the easily bored find so amusing. It never occurs to these dolts that their computer could be running better. They

just

live with these buggy messes, until it takes so long to do something

they

demand a new machine. That's when I spend half a day bringing it back to life, trying to save the firm the $399 for a new cheap Dell.
My company has a loose corporate culture for a place with $10 million

yearly

revenues. Dogs and children and babies wander around; there's no dress

code.

We have an employee manual and rules concerning sexual harassment and employee dismissal that no one has ever looked at. Wages are low, and we allow employees amusing themselves at their workstations because if this

was

a gulag, people wouldn't tolerate the boredom. I've seen plenty of

those.

As

a musician, I often play the corporate parties where the companies let

their

underlings get down by giving them a free hamburger while they listen to

the

rock and roll music. Whatta bunch of stiffs. Sexual subtexts, social politicking, hierarchal ass kissing. I don't know how these people can

drag

themselves to their dreary cubicles. I like to think that our way works better, even if it means accepting what appears to be a waste of time.

Of

course, I'm a patient person. A less tolerant manager wouldn't put up

with

this horse shit. But we're having fun, and making money. I can't argue

with

that...

True, but it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to go Hitler on their asses and block all non-work-related Net access, all downloads, e-mail and whatnot. It's called "network administration" <G>.

If you are a nice guy, they can have a terminal in the lunchroom on which to play, get porn, and gamble. It won't be on your network, however.

I don't really "get", despite 20 years in computers, how employees are allowed to play, modify and otherwise screw up company computers and system with irrelevant crap. By way of "analog" example, I used to proof and layout copy for a major newspaper (anyone remember the "Harris" and ATEX proprietary quasi-Unix/VAX systems?), but I didn't read it at my desk. I took my comp copy and read it on the bus, like most civilians.

I did read the articles I had to proof, naturally, but it's not the same and you don't process for content when you are proofing for style and spelling and what not.

I mean, a little latitude is to be human, but connect the average wage slave to a T1 and he becomes King o' the Downloads...when he should be working!

R.

"Dennis Gordon" wrote in message

[ see

http://news.com.com/Rockin%27+on+without+Microsoft/2008-1082 _3-5065859.html?tag=nl

]
//

Hmmm - I've thought a little more about this and: it seems IMHO a gross miscarriage of justice.

It would seem appropriate form Mr Ball and his company to be given a full and public apology by all parties involved and, of course, a full reimbursement for all costs sustained.

It would seem on the face of it an orchestrated institutional attempt to hammer fallen angels while letting the little devils run wild (I won't elaborate - use imagination)

Arts

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:42:55 GMT, "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

Fine in theory, but...

There are about 60 employees in my company. About 10 of them are in production, which I manage. Due to my brilliant implementation of PDF workflow and my excellent communication with our printers ("...Now when's this paper really going on press, ol' buddy"?) we have dramatically reduced the stress and tedium levels in getting our papers and magazines out the door. We're publishing up to 600 tab pages a week with a smaller crew than we had putting out half the pages 6 years ago. The people in my department often have time on their hands because we have become quite efficient at moving things out of here. Some of us use that time to hone their Photoshop and InDesign skills. Others would rather play Marbles and cruise Ebay. I don't really care, as long as the work is done and the quality is good. Now those in production have the advantage of my presence, ensuring that when they pick up some virus from noodling around, or keep crashing because they have IM, Real Player, Weatherbug and 145 spyware registry keys all competing for their computer's attention, I'm right their to set things right and gently admonish them, again, to keep this junk off of their machines. I've built and maintained almost 20 machines in the past 5 years, and they all work fine.

Now the rest of the company is more of a problem. Receptionists, salespeople, circulation grunts, interns. Multiple users of crummy old boxes, sending each other stupid emails, careless surfing, opening suspicious attachments, la-di-da... and, of course, the useless Windows themes and screensavers that the easily bored find so amusing. It never occurs to these dolts that their computer could be running better. They just live with these buggy messes, until it takes so long to do something they demand a new machine. That's when I spend half a day bringing it back to life, trying to save the firm the $399 for a new cheap Dell.
My company has a loose corporate culture for a place with $10 million yearly revenues. Dogs and children and babies wander around; there's no dress code. We have an employee manual and rules concerning sexual harassment and employee dismissal that no one has ever looked at. Wages are low, and we allow employees amusing themselves at their workstations because if this was a gulag, people wouldn't tolerate the boredom. I've seen plenty of those. As a musician, I often play the corporate parties where the companies let their underlings get down by giving them a free hamburger while they listen to the rock and roll music. Whatta bunch of stiffs. Sexual subtexts, social politicking, hierarchal ass kissing. I don't know how these people can drag themselves to their dreary cubicles. I like to think that our way works better, even if it means accepting what appears to be a waste of time. Of course, I'm a patient person. A less tolerant manager wouldn't put up with this horse shit. But we're having fun, and making money. I can't argue with that...

In which case, can I suggest you buy AV, AntiTrojan and Anti Spy software, install it on all computers and lock it down? That would solve a lot of your problems immediately. Especially the Adware/Spyware ones. Something like SpySweeper operates all the time and can prevent a lot of stuff from happening in the first place. Just a suggestion ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

in article JBaTc.3317$, Arty Phacting at
wrote on 08/13/2004 2:43 PM:

It would seem appropriate form Mr Ball and his company to be given a full and public apology...

Shut up you idiot! As if your opinion means anything.

"RSD99" ...

...You ... on the other hand ... might not be able to do the same because of the needs of the "prepress industry." But ...then again ... maybe you actually could if you tried.

I just can't see this connection between pre-press and Windoze. I worked in large and small PostScript pre-press shops for years and never saw one PC, let alone used one. (Maybe this is partly because the tools were latecomers to that platform?) All our studio's current bureaux and printers are Mac-based.

--Toby

Man, you are really behind the times!!!!

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

"RSD99" wrote in message

news:<bxNSc.11063$>...

...You ... on the other hand ... might not be able to do the same

because of the

needs of the "prepress industry." But ...then again ... maybe you

actually could if you

tried.

I just can't see this connection between pre-press and Windoze. I worked in large and small PostScript pre-press shops for years and never saw one PC, let alone used one. (Maybe this is partly because the tools were latecomers to that platform?) All our studio's current bureaux and printers are Mac-based.

--Toby

I've got Adaware on most of the machines... and it's helped a lot. Tried Stopzilla, whose idea of blocking popups seems to be a popup telling you it's blocked a popup, and updates everytime I boot. Got rid of that. As bad as the spyware has been the exponential increase in spam. I usually have to clear about 800 spam messages from my email on Monday mornings. Our attempts to block the spam at the IMAP server has been ineffective so far...

In which case, can I suggest you buy AV, AntiTrojan and Anti Spy software, install it on all computers and lock it down? That would solve a lot of your problems immediately. Especially the Adware/Spyware ones. Something like SpySweeper operates all the time and can prevent a lot of stuff from happening in the first place. Just a suggestion ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecete wrote:

in article JBaTc.3317$, Arty Phacting at
wrote on 08/13/2004 2:43 PM:

It would seem appropriate form Mr Ball and his company to be given a full and public apology...

Shut up you idiot! As if your opinion means anything.

Small reward for large adulation.
Look thee where he striketh,
and that is thy weakest spot.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

ah - the mighty one replied :-)

thank you for proportioning me a quantum of your time and thoughtfulness

your humble sockpuppet

Arty

"Hecete" wrote in message

in article JBaTc.3317$, Arty Phacting at
wrote on 08/13/2004 2:43 PM:

It would seem appropriate form Mr Ball and his company to be given a

full

and public apology...

Shut up you idiot! As if your opinion means anything.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:31:18 GMT, "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

I've got Adaware on most of the machines... and it's helped a lot. Tried Stopzilla, whose idea of blocking popups seems to be a popup telling you it's blocked a popup, and updates everytime I boot. Got rid of that. As bad as the spyware has been the exponential increase in spam. I usually have to clear about 800 spam messages from my email on Monday mornings. Our attempts to block the spam at the IMAP server has been ineffective so far...

Take a look at Mailwasher (www.firetrust.com). There is a server version and I found it was about 99.9% accurate after a couple of weeks training. You can also join a system they run called First Alert - everyone who's part of this system reports spam to a central server, which is checked by Mailwasher and increases the chances of Known Spam being marked as so before you've even looked at it. And, I've found the false positives are absolutely minimal. I've had only two in the last three weeks.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On 13 Aug 2004 19:02:42 -0700, (Toby Thain)
wrote:

"RSD99" ...

...You ... on the other hand ... might not be able to do the same because of the needs of the "prepress industry." But ...then again ... maybe you actually could if you tried.

I just can't see this connection between pre-press and Windoze. I worked in large and small PostScript pre-press shops for years and never saw one PC, let alone used one. (Maybe this is partly because the tools were latecomers to that platform?) All our studio's current bureaux and printers are Mac-based.

I think that's rather more true of the US than Europe. Although there are still pockets of Mac-only bureaux, there's a lot more PCs now and a lot of individual designers/freelancers operate with PCs.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

I'll check that out. Thanks for the tip...

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:31:18 GMT, "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

I've got Adaware on most of the machines... and it's helped a lot. Tried Stopzilla, whose idea of blocking popups seems to be a popup telling you it's blocked a popup, and updates everytime I boot. Got rid of that. As

bad

as the spyware has been the exponential increase in spam. I usually have

to

clear about 800 spam messages from my email on Monday mornings. Our

attempts

to block the spam at the IMAP server has been ineffective so far...

Take a look at Mailwasher (www.firetrust.com). There is a server version and I found it was about 99.9% accurate after a couple of weeks training. You can also join a system they run called First Alert - everyone who's part of this system reports spam to a central server, which is checked by Mailwasher and increases the chances of Known Spam being marked as so before you've even looked at it. And, I've found the false positives are absolutely minimal. I've had only two in the last three weeks.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui