Digital BW, The Print

On 3/8/05 5:59 PM, "Anthony G. Atkielski" sent the following verbage:

> 
> The reality is that the entire user base does fall roughly into those
> two categories.  People are either interested in computers for their own
> sake, or they're not.

I don't even understand your point.


> The vast majority of people using computers today
> are interested in computers as tools, not as ends in themselves.  This
> is quite a change from the early days of computers, when the only people
> using them were computer geeks (and a handful of accountants or others
> who absolutely could not do their job without computers, even in those
> days).

Ya well, software has changed a little.


> Why do you upgrade?

Argh.

> So you've only upgraded twice, from the old little Mac to a new OS X
> Mac, and from a MS-DOS system to Windows XP?

Nope.. There were many in between.. Macs and OS's... But never windows
thanks. DOS to mac, to mac, to mac, and so on.


> 
> I have yet to see a system that can do anything in Photoshop on a
> reasonably large image with no delay at all.  For one thing, that would
> require more memory than it is possible to configure on most systems.

I didn't say there were no delays, I said it was much faster.


> 
> There's nothing wrong with upgrading when you _need_ to upgrade.  But
> most people don't need to upgrade ... they simply do so because they've
> been conditioned to do so by vendors, and they never stop to critically
> assess the real need (if any) for upgrades.

So we're all sheep then. Conditioned and simple minded, good to know.

> 
> The only people who look at upgrades with the critical view that they
> merit are people who must maintain production, mission-critical systems,
> or very large installed bases of computers.  These people cannot afford
> to blow money on useless upgrades, nor can they afford the high risks
> associated with them.

What does that have to do with upgrading photoshop..  And who dictates they
are useless. 


> 
> So you've upgraded with every other version?  What did you need in each
> new version that you didn't already have?

No, I passed up one version of PS, the other software upgrades I passed up I
can't remember, that's what I said.


> 
> It does the job for me, particularly with photography, since photography
> requires only a very limited set of tools (as compared with graphic art,
> which requires a much larger set of tools).

Your photography then, there are other sorts out here.


> Photoshop CS has
> activation, which corrupts the boot sectors of disks and destabilizes my
> system, and potentially prevents me from working on critical projects.
> It adds nothing that would be useful to me in exchange for this.  It
> costs too much money.  And Adobe still doesn't fix fundamental problems
> with the product, such as memory management--it just adds more bells and
> whistles with each release, because it's a cheaper, shorter path to
> revenue.

Do you print? THAT costs money too... Bells and whistles to one are
worthwhile tools to another.



> How much of a net gain did you calculate as the direct result of
> upgrades during your last audit?

That would be none of your business.


> You've had control with every version of Photoshop.  If anything recent
> versions do more and more on their own, without your control.

Oh yes, they're taking over.. Turn off adobe call home.

> 
>> Can't imagine saving my 2Gig files to floppies either :) Another great leap
>> for me, PS Large Document Format file saving.. Yahoo.
> 
> You can't put 2 GB of information on a floppy, no matter what format you
> use.

I know. That was my point.

Well, this has been fun... Don't know how I got involved, but I'm stepping
down...  I know you love this argument stuff Anthony, I don't. It gets old
fast and I have work to do.

Carolyn