Elements 3.0, I can't believe they offered a demo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by clutch, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. clutch

    clutch Guest

    I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
    like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
    program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.

    Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
    Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
    and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
    bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.

    Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
    adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
    hurried home from work to test it.

    On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
    screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
    picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
    you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
    wanted from Adobe.

    The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
    1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.

    Just my little mini rant,

    Wes
     
    clutch, Mar 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. clutch

    Beano Guest

    |I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
    | like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
    | program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.
    |
    | Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
    | Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
    | and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
    | bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.
    |
    | Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
    | adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
    | hurried home from work to test it.
    |
    | On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
    | screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
    | picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
    | you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
    | wanted from Adobe.
    |
    | The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
    | 1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.
    |
    | Just my little mini rant,
    |
    | Wes
    |
    |
    | --
    | Reply to:
    | Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
    | Lycos address is a spam trap.

    I'm sure there's a point in here somewhere.
     
    Beano, Mar 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. clutch

    Eric Miller Guest

    1.2 Ghz Athlon with only 512mb of RAM? Maybe you should have tried it on a
    400 mhz Pentium III first!

    Photoshop CS loads in about 10 seconds on my 2.8Ghz P4 with 1gb RAM for
    reference. Maybe its time for an upgrade.

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Mar 8, 2005
    #3
  4. clutch

    clutch Guest

    I don't think so. Everything else that I run loads in a reasonable
    amount of time.

    I left out W2K SP4 from description.

    Wes
     
    clutch, Mar 8, 2005
    #4
  5. clutch

    clutch Guest

    You had to include my entire post to say that?
     
    clutch, Mar 8, 2005
    #5
  6. clutch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Just wondering what, besides your slow computer, turned you off.
    Granted, the Organizer is a bit buggy, but the editor is unmatched at
    this price level. With Amazon rebates, it cost me only $49.95. The
    trial version (NOT DEMO), is a bit slow, which is a pretty DUMB way to
    disable a trial program, in my opinion. Perhaps you can get someone to
    let you try the installed commercial version on a machine similar to
    yours. I find it quite acceptable on my 1.3ghz laptop. It is a bit
    slow to load the editor portion from the Organizer, but one open,
    doesn't have to reload.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 8, 2005
    #6
  7. clutch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Load speed isn't a major advantage of PSE3, but once you get it loaded,
    it does a good job.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 8, 2005
    #7
  8. E3 is not a fast loader, but a good machine (generally means both speed
    and RAM size (512 is small for serious graphic work) will load it a lot
    faster than that. ... I just tried mine and it loaded in 13 seconds.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 8, 2005
    #8
  9. clutch

    Roger Guest

    Joseph,

    I'm going to have to either upgrade or replace (same difference?) my
    main computer that controls my scanner. Would you mind telling me what
    your machine configuration is? It would help me decide on a direction
    for my next step.

    Thanks,
    Roger
     
    Roger, Mar 8, 2005
    #9
  10. clutch

    paul Guest


    Full PS is also very slow loading.
     
    paul, Mar 8, 2005
    #10
  11. clutch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    It takes 22 seconds to load to Organizer on my AThlon XP 2200+ (1.8
    Ghz). Loading the editor after that takes another 30 seconds (rarely
    necessary). I can wait that long.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 8, 2005
    #11
  12. clutch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Are we talking PC or Mac? The more RAM, and faster processor, the
    better. WinXP for the PC and OS X (latest version at the time) for the
    Mac. A large HD is also a plus if you intend to work with a lot of
    pictures.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 8, 2005
    #12
  13. clutch

    M. Souris Guest

    Try Picass2 again. You can flag (use the star) any pix u want, then
    select the starred photos and do anything you want with them.
     
    M. Souris, Mar 9, 2005
    #13
  14. clutch

    clutch Guest

    Oh, two hangs trying to install directx on a box that is at current
    directx rev level. "failure to initialize application errors" that
    don't seem to stop me from trying this program out.

    It did install w/o directx issues on another box but it also gives
    "failure to initialize application" errors on startup also. That box
    is also W2k but is a bit slower with framebuffer video, and only 384M
    ram.

    I'm just a bit disapointed, I am not out to trash Adobe, they make
    some great stuff. Their trial doesn't seem to be.

    Generally, you try to put your best foot forward when trying to sell
    to a customer. A car salesman isn't going to have you demo the lot
    lemon. Oh well, I am playing with this because I am getting the hang
    of the Orginizer and I am warming up to it.

    I have elements 2.0 and it seemed like it was an okay program, one
    more tool in the toolbox. I figured a really good organizer + a more
    capable editor would be win-win.

    FWIW, my slow box is rather speedy, it is a 1.2 gig machine next to a
    800mhz machine on a kvm switch. The slower box does ripping, burning
    and any other thing that doesn't tolerate contention for processor
    cycles. A multi processor box of a different type.

    I'm going to try to apply the 3.01 update to the trial and see what
    happens.

    Well, so much for that. The update that came out after the trial will
    not update the trial.

    Wes
     
    clutch, Mar 9, 2005
    #14
  15. clutch

    clutch Guest

    Darn, after I posted, I re-read your message. You are saying they
    made the trial slow on purpose? What is load time on your 1.3Ghz
    laptop? That is load to orginizer. What is your ram and OS?

    Thanks, Seems like I have a bit of tunnel vision the last two days.

    Wes
     
    clutch, Mar 9, 2005
    #15
  16. clutch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Waste of time. The 3.01 update ONLY applies a patch of the date format
    to allow those in Europe to see dates in their accustomed format.

    As for 1.2 gHz, my laptop is faster than that. Anything under 2.4 gHz
    is considered below average these days.

    I haven't loaded the trial as I have the paid for version. The
    organizer has some bugs, and some glaring faults, but the program has
    the best 'auto-fix' I have seen yet, easy red-eye elimination (which v2
    lacked), and a 'healing brush' that is beautiful. It will also separate
    multiple pictures scanned together (if you allow space between them).
    Noise elimination is also pretty good. Even though I have PSE 2, I
    consider PSE 3 well worth the investment. When one learns to bypass, or
    avoid, the bugs in the Organizer, it too can be used to good effect.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 9, 2005
    #16
  17. clutch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
    from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
    The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
    seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
    additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
    can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
    purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
    slower..intentional or not.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 9, 2005
    #17
  18. My experience is pretty much the same for my Elements 3 (standard
    edition) running on my machine (1500 MHz, 256MB memory, 26GB partition
    with 8 used; I think the disc would be 5200rpm). If I right click a
    750 KB JPG and start timing after clicking Open with Elements 3.0, it
    is 20 seconds before the picture is displayed for editing. The
    original Elements (1.0, I suppose) takes 12 seconds.
     
    James Silverton, Mar 9, 2005
    #18
  19. clutch

    Pete Fenelon Guest

    Agreed. Elements 3.0 is a dog to start up -- to the point that it's not
    worth associating with JPG as the default application. Irfanview is fine
    for viewing and some very simple modifications; I *explicitly* invoke
    Elements for its editing and organising capabilities.

    It's a bigger and more complex application than Elements 1 and 2, but I
    believe the additional power makes it worth the effort.

    High on the wish-list for Elements 4 would be an ultra-light
    image-viewer that could invoke the full program.

    pete
     
    Pete Fenelon, Mar 9, 2005
    #19
  20. clutch

    Markku V. Guest

    " ..... 512 is small for serious graphic work ......"

    About five years ago 128MB was really a huge amount of memory. I wonder
    if there were no "serious graphic work" at all back in those days.

    Markku Virtanen
     
    Markku V., Mar 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.