Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
On 10/23/11 PDT 4:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<2011102307143875799-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom>,
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>
>>> You should realize that that backwards compatibility comes at a price.
>>> Higher prices and lower performance.

>>
>> Windows has both.

>
> I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
> sacrificing backwards compatibility.


Windows the operating system, not the chips.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charles E. Hardwidge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011

"Pete A" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2011102317005245441-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
> On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:
>
>> [...]
>> I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
>> sacrificing backwards compatibility.

>
> My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
> controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD -> ASIC -> FPGA ->
> whatever they are now called).


I waaant my DSP,
Money for nothing,
And the chicks are free.

Uh, middle-aged nerd alert.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
On 2011-10-23 18:39:07 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge said:

> "Pete A" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:2011102317005245441-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
>> On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
>>> sacrificing backwards compatibility.

>>
>> My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
>> controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD -> ASIC -> FPGA ->
>> whatever they are now called).

>
> I waaant my DSP,
> Money for nothing,
> And the chicks are free.
>
> Uh, middle-aged nerd alert.


When in Dire Straits, just do some photography...

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2011
On 10/23/11 PDT 11:59 AM, Pete A wrote:
> On 2011-10-23 18:39:07 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge said:
>
>> "Pete A" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:2011102317005245441-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
>>> On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
>>>> sacrificing backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
>>> controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD -> ASIC -> FPGA
>>> -> whatever they are now called).

>>
>> I waaant my DSP,
>> Money for nothing,
>> And the chicks are free.
>>
>> Uh, middle-aged nerd alert.

>
> When in Dire Straits, just do some photography...


Look at that mama, she got it stickin' in the camera.

Surprisingly on topic.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2011
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On 19/10/2011 20:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> nospam<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
>>>>> natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
>>>>> has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
>>>>> the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)
>>>
>>>> 5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
>>>> are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
>>>> need the new features.
>>>
>>> I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
>>> out?

>>
>> XP is an exceptional case -- it's been kept in support much longer than
>> its predecessors.

>
> No. XP was an unusually good vintage and there are still corporates
> running it even today. Vista was almost still-born and no amount of PR
> fluff and infinite budget advertising hype could resurrect it.


What do you mean, "no"? You then go on to say that there's strong
demand for it even today, which is also part of what I said.

We are in fact still running XP where I work, and expect to upgrade to
Windows 7 this quarter or next.

>> At least it shows that even Microsoft can listen to customer pressure,
>> if there's enough of it.

>
> Only when it is practically the entire corporate world - even then
> they tried several times to retire it prematurely with extreme
> prejudice.


Yes, the strong consensus helped a lot.

> And they inflicted a bug ridden Office 2007 on the world to show that
> they really don't care about their customers for good measure.


Is that worse than normal for Office? I wouldn't know.

> Win7 looks like it might be another decent vintage. They do happen
> occasionally but more by good luck than good judgement.


Hmmm; what are the bad mainstream Windows vintages? 1 and 2, for sure.
ME isn't mainstream, happily. Vista, they say ("they" said it strongly
enough that I avoided it at home, and work avoided it, so I've never
actually seen Vista and can't testify to its quality).
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > On 19/10/2011 20:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>
> >>> nospam<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
> >>>>> natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
> >>>>> has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
> >>>>> the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)
> >>>
> >>>> 5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
> >>>> are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
> >>>> need the new features.
> >>>
> >>> I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
> >>> out?
> >>
> >> XP is an exceptional case -- it's been kept in support much longer than
> >> its predecessors.

> >
> > No. XP was an unusually good vintage and there are still corporates
> > running it even today. Vista was almost still-born and no amount of PR
> > fluff and infinite budget advertising hype could resurrect it.

>
> What do you mean, "no"? You then go on to say that there's strong
> demand for it even today, which is also part of what I said.
>
> We are in fact still running XP where I work, and expect to upgrade to
> Windows 7 this quarter or next.
>
> >> At least it shows that even Microsoft can listen to customer pressure,
> >> if there's enough of it.

> >
> > Only when it is practically the entire corporate world - even then
> > they tried several times to retire it prematurely with extreme
> > prejudice.

>
> Yes, the strong consensus helped a lot.
>
> > And they inflicted a bug ridden Office 2007 on the world to show that
> > they really don't care about their customers for good measure.

>
> Is that worse than normal for Office? I wouldn't know.
>
> > Win7 looks like it might be another decent vintage. They do happen
> > occasionally but more by good luck than good judgement.

>
> Hmmm; what are the bad mainstream Windows vintages? 1 and 2, for sure.
> ME isn't mainstream, happily. Vista, they say ("they" said it strongly
> enough that I avoided it at home, and work avoided it, so I've never
> actually seen Vista and can't testify to its quality).


I've been running Vista since it first appeared and it's given me no
real problems other than that they changed the driver rules so that some
of my older hardware has to work on compatibility drivers and other
hardware doesn't work at all--I had to rig an Ethernet-to-100VG bridge
for example because there's no possibility of support for the 100VG
NICs, and my old inkjet printer runs on a generic driver. But this
isn't any kind of bug and the drivers that are broken by Vista aren't
fixed by Windows 7. But aside from the driver issues and the odd
pathological program that won't run on a 64-bit OS not no way not no how
it's been pretty much problem free.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2011
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, notbob wrote:

> On 2011-10-11, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.

>
> An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.


Heh, this is the sort of feature that I'd gladply pay $$$$ for!

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2011
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce wrote:

> notbob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 2011-10-11, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.

>>
>> An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.

>
>
> Yes, that is mostly what it is. The vast majority of Photoshop users
> would be quite happy with a much earlier version of the software, or
> Elements, but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
> regularly and expensively.


Adobe does not "limit compatibility". Camera makers continually change
the RAW file format over and over again, requiring Adobe to task a team of
coders to recode their RAW engine to deal with them. These employees cost
money. Adobe has tried to create a standard RAW format (DNG) to rule them
all to avoid this problem, but the camera makers will have none of it.

The copy of Photoshop you buy will always open the RAW files that it opens
when you buy it. Future cameras with new formats may not be opened by the
older software versions.

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2011

"Ryan McGinnis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1110242130410.2055@ryan-BigStorm...
> Adobe does not "limit compatibility". Camera makers continually change
> the RAW file format over and over again, requiring Adobe to task a team of
> coders to recode their RAW engine to deal with them. These employees cost
> money. Adobe has tried to create a standard RAW format (DNG) to rule them
> all to avoid this problem, but the camera makers will have none of it.
>
> The copy of Photoshop you buy will always open the RAW files that it opens
> when you buy it. Future cameras with new formats may not be opened by the
> older software versions.


All very true, and you can also use the camera makers software to convert
from RAW before opening in PS. However most PS users find using
Bridge/camera-raw or Lightroom to be an easier work flow situation, and
Adobe knows it. The changes to many new camera model RAW formats are
trivial, but Adobe needs some excuse to force you to upgrade, since many of
the new features are not enough to justify the price for most people.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2011
In article <alpine.DEB.2.02.1110242130410.2055@ryan-BigStorm>, Ryan
McGinnis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Adobe does not "limit compatibility". Camera makers continually change
> the RAW file format over and over again, requiring Adobe to task a team of
> coders to recode their RAW engine to deal with them. These employees cost
> money.


that's because every new sensor is a little different. they don't sit
around and think gee how can we change something.

> Adobe has tried to create a standard RAW format (DNG) to rule them
> all to avoid this problem, but the camera makers will have none of it.


there's very little advantage for them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop PeterN Digital Photography 10 10-23-2011 07:33 PM
Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop Trevor Digital Photography 9 10-17-2011 05:08 PM
Best Photoshop Feature You've Never Heard Of? Annika1980 Digital Photography 2 12-12-2005 04:50 PM
CurrentElement->next = CurrentElement->next->next (UNDEFINED?) Deniz Bahar C Programming 2 03-09-2005 12:45 AM



Advertisments