better Kodak reorganization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dale, May 6, 2013.

  1. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, says...
    >
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > >In article <>,
    > >says...
    > >>
    > >> On 05/09/2013 01:02 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > >> > In article <>,
    > >> > says...

    > >
    > >> >> When they were finally
    > >> >> allowed to make computers for other purposes than just driving
    > >> >> electronic central offices, they mismanaged that so badly that they
    > >> >> decided to stop that and to buy an existing computer company instead.
    > >> >
    > >> > They wouldn't have had to make computers for any other purpose without
    > >> > the lawsuit.
    > >>
    > >> Sure they would.

    > >
    > >Why?

    >
    > Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
    > were in fact computers.


    For a very loose definition of "computer".

    > When common control, not just of the computer but of the entire
    > signaling system for the PSTN, was implemented there was no way
    > to operate any telecom system without computers.


    And yet somehow it was managed.

    > >> They used lots of computers internally, and they wanted
    > >> to sell them.

    > >
    > >Which would be moving away from their core competency.

    >
    > That depends on which computers. First, Bell Labs most
    > certainly had some of the finest computer research being
    > done, going back to the beginning no matter how you want
    > to define "beginning". But second, of "core competency"
    > means telecommunications, as in selling switching
    > systems to the rest of the world, then selling computers
    > was absolutely part of their core competency.


    AT&T's main line of business was not "selling switching system to the
    rest of the world". They were a service company with hardware
    secondary. Their core competency was delivering telephone service
    cheaply and reliably.

    > >> They were early pioneers in making computers even before
    > >> WW-II.

    > >
    > >Do tell us about the computer that AT&T made before WWII.

    >
    > Everything related to "digital" that produced a digital
    > computer, was based on Bell Labs research. Crossbar
    > switching systems were first installed during WWII
    > (1943), but of course the mass of R&D that that produced
    > them was done much prior.
    >
    > PCM of course was fully specified back in the 1930's.


    You have not demonstrated the existence of a computer made by AT&T prior
    to WWII. That was your assertion, not that research into digital
    signalling was conducted. Perhaps you don't understand that the word
    "computer" is not a generic catch-all for digital technology--a 7401
    quad nand gate is a digital device, but it is a long way from being a
    computer.

    > ...
    > >> >> I am saying (now; I did not say this in my post) that losing that
    > >> >> lawsuit was a really great opportunity for the AT&T, and they wasted
    > >> >> that opportunity completely.
    > >> >
    > >> > Only if you want them to be something other than what they were, the
    > >> > telephone company.
    > >>
    > >> They were much much more than a telephone company.

    > >
    > >They were the telephone company. That was their core competency.

    >
    > That was at the core of their competency, but clearly their core
    > competency extended far beyond...


    You aren't by any chance a former president who didn't have sex with
    that woman are you?

    > ...
    > >> Nonsense. They played a part, but AT&T would have fallen apart
    > >> regardless. It might have taken a little longer.

    > >
    > >Perhaps it would, perhaps it wouldn't. We'll never know because it was
    > >destroyed by the lawyers.
    > >
    > >Note that AT&T is still around. The bastards that sued them aren't.

    >
    > That a great bit of imagination.


    In what universe?
     
    J. Clarke, May 10, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    This is getting pointless. You're arguing both sides as suits your
    whim, you don't know the difference between a computer and a calculator,
    you don't understand how the internal accounting in large businesses
    works, and you're starting to show evidence that you're uneducable.
    This conversation is turning into a time-sink and I'm out of here.

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On 05/10/2013 12:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > > They bought stuff from China
    > > and wondered why Western Electric (later spun into Lucent) had trouble
    > > selling stuff.
    > >>> "Selling stuff" was a small part of their business.
    > >> Selling stuff was the Entire business of Western Electric. They sold all
    > >> the equipment the operating companies used except maybe toilet paper and
    > >> Scotch Tape. Central Offices, PBXs, telephones, wire, ...

    > > After the lawsuit.
    > >

    > Balony. They sold stuff even before they were purchased by AT&T way back
    > in the fogs of time.
    > That was Western Electric's only reason for existance (except for
    > defense contracting military systems such as the M-33 fire control
    > system, the Nike missile systems, Safeguard anti-ballistic missile
    > system, ...). AT&T did not keep them around as a hobby. They made all
    > the equipment used by the 22 operating companies for most of a century.
    > > Do tell us about the computer that AT&T made before WWII.

    >
    > http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Relays/Stibitz.html
    > >
    > >> They made of the first transistorized computers. About that time,
    > >> in an earlier case, the Justice Department made them stop making
    > >> computers, and the teams working on them were broken up, partly by mass
    > >> resignations of people who went to work for independent computer
    > >> manufacturers.

    >
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRADIC
    >
    > >>>> They chose National Cash Register, not because they made great
    > >>>> computers, but because they were cheap. After a few years of mismanaging
    > >>>> NCR, they spun it off at half the price they paid for it because they
    > >>>> had messed it up so bad. The Sadim touch (opposite of Midas), where
    > >>>> everything they touched turned to $hit.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I am saying (now; I did not say this in my post) that losing that
    > >>>> lawsuit was a really great opportunity for the AT&T, and they wasted
    > >>>> that opportunity completely.
    > >>> Only if you want them to be something other than what they were, the
    > >>> telephone company.
    > >> They were much much more than a telephone company.

    > > They were the telephone company. That was their core competency.

    >
    > My father can lick your father.
    > >
    > >> They engaged in much
    > >> fundamental research only tangentially related to telephones. For
    > >> example, Davisson and Germer's discovery that electrons were both waves
    > >> and particles (Nobel prize in physics), Ives' discovery of retardation
    > >> of atomic clocks, invention of transistor instead of just making better
    > >> telephone relays, ...

    > > A couple of posts earlier you said they neglected research. You're
    > > talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
    > >
    > >

    > That company was in business over 100 years. The deterioration, as it
    > seemed to me at the time, started in the early 1970s, although it
    > probably was already happening at the time of the Carterphone decision.
    >
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone
    >
    > For decades, they were possibly the premier technical research
    > laboratory in the world. For decades, they were getting a patent a day.
    > And 13 Nobel prizes. They did not get them for the Princess telephone.
    >
    > From about 1925 until I left at the end of 1989, the Bell Labs
    > presidents had a pretty good idea of the importance of basic research,
    > for example. Problems ensued when AT&T and Western Electric (joint
    > owners of Bell Labs) got too interested in short-term development and
    > did not understand that basic research was the future. Bell Labs'
    > charter ensured that both basic research and product development were
    > done. It is my impression that basic research was about 10% of what was
    > done there, and development was around 75% or so. Then in the 1980s,
    > some badly understood work was started on a huge scale, gobbling up
    > resources including management attention. President of Bell Labs was a
    > big deal until about then, but the bean counters at AT&T did not
    > understand research (or even development, actually), and things went to
    > hell.
    >
    > Think about the economy of the United States and how Bell Labs affected
    > it. If Brattain, Bardeen, and Shockley had been told to design better
    > relay contacts, and if they did not quit, they would have designed
    > better relay contacts. Instead, they were interested in the physics of
    > the solid state. What has that to do with telephones? They just invented
    > the transistor, that's all. It is true that AT&T never made a success at
    > manufacturing transistors, but companies like Texas Instruments,
    > Fairchild, RCA, Philco, and a few others made a success of it. Changed
    > the economy of the whole world. Now there is a computer in my cell
    > phone, several computers in my car, ... . That cell phone has more
    > compute power than the IBM 704 I first used in the late 1950s that cost
    > $680/ an hour to rent and required two trained operators per shift to
    > run it.
     
    J. Clarke, May 10, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. On 05/10/2013 10:48 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > This is getting pointless.

    It sure is, and that is because ...
    > You're arguing both sides as suits your
    > whim,

    Well, I was there for over 25 years, and while I do not know everything,
    I sure know a lot.
    One reason why you think I am arguing both sides is that the culture and
    management style changed from time to time. Not enough to save the
    institution, but it did change, so comments about one era not
    surprisingly did not apply to another era.

    > you don't know the difference between a computer and a calculator,

    Now you are being stupid. You have no evidence of that one way or another.
    As it happens, I have designed small computer systems, written operating
    systems, compilers, a relational database management system, and lots of
    other stuff. To do that, I surely would have needed to know that. And
    these days, it is more difficult to distinguish one from another. In the
    1950s, the distinction was quite clear. Machines with a stored program
    were computers, and those without were calculators.

    you don't understand how the internal accounting in large businesses
    works,

    Not especially, and that is important because?

    > and you're starting to show evidence that you're uneducable.


    How would you know? Have you been trying to educate me and failed? If so, I did not even realize you were attempting education. What were you trying to educate me about?

    > This conversation is turning into a time-sink and I'm out of here.



    Oh! Good!
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 10, 2013
    #43
  4. On 05/09/2013 04:19 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Think "Information Age". In 1940 it was a company based
    > on the economics of message traffic. By 1960 there were
    > predictions on when revenue from message traffic would
    > drop below revenue from byte oriented data traffic.
    >
    > Corporate AT&T was frozen and unable to respond to the
    > changes that occured as those predictions became true.


    Reminds me of a direct experience I had of that. I was an MTS at Bell
    Labs at the time (around 1980, I guess) in a development area. In our
    department, several of the people wanted to investigate packet switching
    in general, and what the development of such a technology would mean as
    far as support from the network would be concerned.

    Just like when my grandfather was a director of electro-optical research
    and investigating television possibilities in the early 1920s. That had
    nothing to do with telephones either. His real interest was in physics,
    relativity, optics, photoelectric effect.... But management was
    enlightened in those days. So he did it and they demonstrated television
    in about 1927, and color television soon after. This turned out to be
    extremely valuable to the bottom line, because when commercial
    television became a big deal just after WW-II, guess who knew what
    bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio would be needed by the networks?
    Guess who had prepared for this, and had the equipment ready?

    Well studying packet switched networks, instead of the old circuit
    switched networks, would have been a big deal. ARPAnet was just getting
    started in those days, and the networking implications were not yet well
    understood. So it would have been a really worthwhile project for a
    small number (much less than 10) people to study. Management prohibited
    working on it, so those people quit and went to work for competitors of
    ours. Our director said that 98 percent of our business was voice, and
    that data would never amount to much. In our business, they had no
    understanding of what data was. They understood voice, facsimile,
    television. They lumped what they did not understand into the category
    of data and ignored it. Cisco systems came into being and they did
    understand "data." They were not alone. They are still in business.
    AT&T, except for the name, is not.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 10, 2013
    #44
  5. On 05/10/2013 12:13 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > Their research department produced Unix


    That is another interesting story. Bell Labs wrote the operating systems
    for the IBM machines we were using at the time. We recognized that
    continuing along that line, with big batch-processing systems was going
    to dead-end with the 7094-II machines. It did not look like the
    System/360s would be a success. It seemed as though multi-user time
    sharing systems would be the way of the future. But IBM was not
    interested in that, but GE was. So Bell Labs, MIT, and GE teamed up and
    GE made the 645 computers and Bell Labs and MIT cooperated in writing
    MULTICS. Well it was a little ahead of its time and a commercial
    failure. GE sold off their computer division to Honeywell, and Bell Labs
    dropped out of the project. Word came down from above: we will never
    write another operating system. Well Ken and Dennis fortunately were in
    research at Bell Labs, and they had a PDP 9 (or whatever the one before
    the PDP/11 was, and not the PDP 10) sitting around the lab, so they
    decided to build an OS somewhat like MULTICS, but that would run on a
    single processor. One thing lead to another, and they called it UNIX.
    Their department head, being an enlightened engineer himself, supported
    that. Basically, it was done in spite of what top management decreed.
    This is an oversimplification of what happened, but it is long enough.

    A few years later, I had an 11/45 with memory management hardware. And I
    needed it to work. At that time, UNIX did not support that, so my
    department head called Ken ad asked for him to implement memory
    management, and that was all the excuse he needed to get an 11/45 of his
    own and do it. This would have been in the early 1970s, I suppose. By
    the time I left, I do not think that would have been possible.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 10, 2013
    #45
  6. Dale

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/9/2013 4:11 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 5/8/2013 10:45 PM, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
    >>> On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    >>>> In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
    >>>> >, says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.

    >
    > The Bell System was "done in" by the major shifts in the
    > economic model of the telecommunications business
    > brought about by new technologies.
    >
    > Lawyers are merely the people who deal with the result
    > of such problems, not the cause.
    >
    > (Incidentally, AT&T is renowned for their R&D scientists,
    > but it is also true that they had some of the best legal
    > minds available in corporate America.)
    >
    >>> In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
    >>> company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
    >>> but were not the primary cause.
    >>>
    >>> My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
    >>> onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
    >>> forced out by their age.

    >
    > An invalid premise. Going back that far doesn't even
    > match the "understood the business" speculation. They
    > were all wrangling to discover what did work at that
    > time. Some survived, most did not, because nobody
    > "understood" or knew what would work. For at least a
    > couple of decades it was random chaos (aka Capitalism).
    >
    > By the 30's and 40's of course it settled into a
    > regulated monopoly that was primarily executed as a very
    > efficient system of administration, for both operations
    > and the government regulation inherent in their monopoly
    > status. And it is significant that the model under
    > which Bell System management functioned did not exist
    > elsewhere. It was necessarily a unique corporate
    > culture because of that. (The only "business school"
    > that taught how it worked was the Bell System school
    > of hard knocks... coming up through the ranks.)
    >
    > By 1960 of course that meant even the most elder and
    > highest levels of the executive management were born and
    > raised within in that system, and rose to the top
    > *because* of their ability to execute that system.
    >
    >>> They were replaced by business administration
    >>> types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
    >>> football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
    >>> (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
    >>> They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
    >>> quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
    >>> and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
    >>> moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
    >>> over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.

    >
    > Not a tragedy, a fable. They understood the system, and
    > they were as good as it gets! The problem was that the
    > model which was appropriate in 1940, which is what they
    > understood, didn't exist in 1960.
    >
    >> A prime example of the inherent flaw of the B school
    >> game, taught in every B school.

    >
    > A prime example of cooking up a great sounding story to
    > explain what is not understood. Typical of religious
    > dogma...
    >



    Please make a proer attribution. I did not post what your posting says I
    said.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 11, 2013
    #46
  7. Dale

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 06 May 2013 04:50:47 -0400, Dale <> wrote:
    : I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software
    :
    : I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion
    : picture business
    :
    : what the strategic planners their should do is
    :
    : 1) map out ALL the imaging workflows
    : 2) indicate all participations, systems or products
    : 3) identify customers and partners
    : 4) build business cases
    :
    :
    : and don't forget
    :
    : 5) ask why there aren't participations
    : 6) keep up with changes in workflows
    : 7) central system offerings are best to vie
    : 8) create better workflows

    I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should
    develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more
    money than Kodak could get their hands on.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 11, 2013
    #47
  8. On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
    > Davidson) wrote:
    >
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>> Davidson) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>>>> Davidson) wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> In article <>, says...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
    >>>>>>>> were in fact computers.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> For a very loose definition of "computer".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
    >>>>>> 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
    >>>>
    >>>> We were talking about pre-WWII though.
    >>>
    >>> _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

    >>
    >> The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
    >> was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
    >> limiting it enough for you.
    >>
    >>>> The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
    >>>> first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
    >>>> Colossus was demonstrated that same year.
    >>>>
    >>>> The point is that during the early development, when the
    >>>> first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
    >>>> for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
    >>>> commercial product there was indeed a research computer
    >>>> that as should be expect was more advanced.
    >>>
    >>> The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
    >>> were depending on it.

    >>
    >> It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
    >> Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
    >> functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
    >> 1945.

    >
    > From the URL I have already given:
    >
    > "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
    > 1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
    > An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
    > time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
    > by the end of the war."
    >
    > The history of crossbar switches is given in
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
    > that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
    > emerging from Bell labs.
    >
    > The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
    > appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
    > but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
    > crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
    > operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
    > devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
    > level of advance as the Colossus.


    Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
    the Colossus.

    "The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
    model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
    1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
    Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
    ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
    and remained in service until 1949."

    http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Relays/Stibitz.html
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 12, 2013
    #48
  9. On 05/12/2013 02:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: That site specifically
    states "The Complex Number Computer was not programmable". (The Complex
    Number Computer was not called the Mk 1 until later). It goes on to say
    "the Models III and N were the first of the Bell Labs digital
    calculators to have some degree of general programmability, although
    neither was a fully general-purpose calculator".
    > Be careful with semantics. There is a reason everyone
    > calls those devices computers, even though they were not
    > "programmable".
    >
    > They weren't "programmable" in the sense we use today,
    > mostly because Bell Labs did not invent that concept
    > until later! But they did have a hard wired program,
    > they were computers, and the program could be changed.
    > It just happens that the uses those computers were being
    > put to did not require changing the program as such. A
    > fixed result was all that they needed at that time.
    >

    Right, and remember after the model 1, they built the model 2, 3, 4, 5,
    and two model 6's for a government military agency.
    I forget which one. I saw a couple of the later ones in operation
    sometime in the 1950s, I think. IIRC, they used normal little telephone
    relays, not crossbar switches.

    I had one of those crossbar switches when I was in college. I think it
    was a 10x20x6. I made a telephone exchange with it and a couple of other
    relays and a stepper switch to count dial pulses from my "customers."
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 12, 2013
    #49
  10. On 05/12/2013 02:40 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > The 4A Crossbar accepted routing calls dialed by customers as well as
    > by Operators. It had a "Card Translator" using metal punched cards to
    > program routing. The A4A Crossbar was not actually equipped with a
    > Card Translator, and when it because available the designation was
    > changed to 4A Crossbar.


    Those card translators were noisy. They were electromechanical and
    dropped a subset of the cards.
    That card translator may have been the first application of
    semiconductor photocells in production in the Bell System. Light shown
    into one end was detected at the other end by semiconductor photocells
    instead of vacuum tube ones.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 12, 2013
    #50
  11. Dale

    Dale Guest

    On 05/11/2013 12:51 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should
    > develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more
    > money than Kodak could get their hands on.


    no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
    there

    --
    Dale
     
    Dale, Jun 3, 2013
    #51
  12. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Dale
    <> wrote:

    > no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
    > there


    now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.

    it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.

    even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2013
    #52
  13. nospam wrote:
    > now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.
    >
    > it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.
    >
    > even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.


    Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
    the better choice.

    Geoff.

    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
    It's Spring here in Jerusalem!!!
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 3, 2013
    #53
  14. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Geoffrey S.
    Mendelson <> wrote:

    > > now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.
    > >
    > > it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.
    > >
    > > even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.

    >
    > Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
    > the better choice.


    consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2013
    #54
  15. nospam wrote:
    > consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.


    They made no attempt at all to limit it to legitimate cs2 owners.

    When it was announced, before the direct download links were published, you
    could go to their website, and sign up for their free downloads, which
    included CS2.

    The "it was only for licensed users" was published in a blog, not on the
    official website.

    Geoff.


    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
    It's Spring here in Jerusalem!!!
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 4, 2013
    #55
  16. Savageduck wrote:
    > ...and for Mac users out there, CS2 will not run on Intel Macs, only
    > G4, or G5 Macs. That was my reason for upgrading at that time.
    >< http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/ >


    Probably 99% of the people that downloaded it are Windows users, and it
    runs perfectly well under Windows 7 and in an XP virtual machine under
    MacOS.

    Since you posted the link, I suggest that people go to it and read the
    disclaimer.

    Geoff.

    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
    It's Spring here in Jerusalem!!!
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 4, 2013
    #56
  17. Dale

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, June 3, 2013 7:33:17 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-03 11:26:15 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <>, Geoffrey S.

    >
    > > Mendelson <> wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>> now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems

    >
    > >> the better choice.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.

    >
    >
    >
    > Yup!
    >
    > Adobe is not giving CS2 away.
    >
    > ...and for Mac users out there, CS2 will not run on Intel Macs, only
    >
    > G4, or G5 Macs. That was my reason for upgrading at that time.
    >
    > < http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/ >


    I have Photoshop from CS running on a intel Mac mini running snow leopard (10.6).
    There were reported problems when using (command-S) save in that it could corrupt the file, so I used save as... to get around it, not that I experienced that problem. Not that I used Photoshop much anyway but it's handy on the odd occasion.
    On sunday I found my shrink wrapped CD of photoshop 5 LE.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 4, 2013
    #57
  18. Dale

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:44:49 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-04 08:23:23 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Monday, June 3, 2013 7:33:17 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2013-06-03 11:26:15 -0700, nospam <> said:

    >
    > >>> In article <>, Geoffrey S.

    >
    > >>> Mendelson <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>> it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.

    >
    > >>>>> even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems

    >
    > >>>> the better choice.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Yup!

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Adobe is not giving CS2 away.

    >
    > >> ...and for Mac users out there, CS2 will not run on Intel Macs, only

    >
    > >> G4, or G5 Macs. That was my reason for upgrading at that time.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> < http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/ >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I have Photoshop from CS running on a intel Mac mini running snow

    >
    > > leopard (10.6).

    >
    > > There were reported problems when using (command-S) save in that it

    >
    > > could corrupt the file, so I used save as... to get around it, not that

    >
    > > I experienced that problem. Not that I used Photoshop much anyway but

    >
    > > it's handy on the odd occasion.

    >
    > > On sunday I found my shrink wrapped CD of photoshop 5 LE.

    >
    >
    >
    > You don't have Photoshop CS2 running on an Intel Mac. Unless you are
    >
    > running it on a "Bootcamp" or virtual Windows partition.


    Well I'#ll try it again tonight , it's been on there 2 years now with the occasional use, mostley cropping.

    > On your Intel
    >
    > Mac Mini the oldest version you could run is CS3.
    >
    > When I bought my first Intel Mac (an MBP 17'') I had to upgrade to CS3.


    When my G5 PPC imac 2 GHz screen and eventually the PSU started to fail I used migration assistant to copy most of my stuff over to the new mac mini, just to see what would happen as I'd heard about CS2, but PS appeared to be working OK.
    In the summer I'm nuking and paving the mini to mountain lion.
    I will clone the mac mini drive to an extrenal drive just in case I need Photoshop in the future.

    >
    >
    >
    > I am also running OSX 10.6.8, which I am happy with. It seems to be Win
    >
    > XP for Apple, in that quite a few folks have chosen not to move up to
    >
    > "Lion" or "Mountain Lion".


    I'd go to ML not lion I've heard of issues with Lion.


    >However many of the new releases and updates
    >
    > do not support "Snow Leopard".


    Or need an intel processor, I think Rosetta was removed in ML.

    >A good example of this is the Beta of
    >
    > Lightroom 5 which will, for Mac users, only run on OSX 10.7 & 10.8.


    eventually all sofware will go that way.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 4, 2013
    #58
  19. Dale

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:44:49 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-04 08:23:23 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    >


    >
    > > I have Photoshop from CS running on a intel Mac mini running snow

    >
    > > leopard (10.6).

    >
    > > There were reported problems when using (command-S) save in that it

    >
    > > could corrupt the file, so I used save as... to get around it, not that

    >
    > > I experienced that problem. Not that I used Photoshop much anyway but

    >
    > > it's handy on the odd occasion.

    >
    > > On sunday I found my shrink wrapped CD of photoshop 5 LE.

    >
    >
    >
    > You don't have Photoshop CS2 running on an Intel Mac. Unless you are
    >
    > running it on a "Bootcamp" or virtual Windows partition.


    Thought I'd added this ....

    http://ask.metafilter.com/76323/Will-CS2-run-on-intel-processor

    Every now and again I copy a link and paste it and nothing comes out, I re-do the copy and it pastes OK !!!!

    Running W7 & googlegroups
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 4, 2013
    #59
  20. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Geoffrey S.
    Mendelson <> wrote:

    > > now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.
    > >
    > > it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.
    > >
    > > even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.

    >
    > Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
    > the better choice.


    they didn't accidentally release cs2 to the world. it's for legitimate
    cs2 owners.

    it is *not* a free ticket for anyone to download a copy and run it.
    that's piracy.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2013
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Imya Rek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    508
    Imya Rek
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Thad

    4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization

    Thad, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    75
    Views:
    1,410
    Bill Aten
    Oct 22, 2004
  3. Robert McClenon

    Vote *NO* on reorganization

    Robert McClenon, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    956
    Paul J Gans
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. James Silverton

    Reorganization CFV

    James Silverton, Oct 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    339
    Robert McClenon
    Oct 9, 2004
  5. Dale

    Kodak reorganization

    Dale, May 6, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    196
    RichA
    May 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page