Re: [Digital BW] Digest Number 2927
2005-03-11 by Christer Rosewelll
Anthony, Seems to me your arguing for the sake of arguing - please accept that for many of us - especially those of us who do this for a living - an upgrade is usually always a timesaving and money making event. And for those of us who use Macs - an upgrade is almost always a very simple thing - install, reboot and go back to work. If you prefer to work with old software and methods, that's OK - you do what is good for you - but please accept - without getting argumentative and using silly arguments - that some of us do things different than you do - and you should accept that! Now - don't waste your time arguing or rebutting me - or anyone else - just accept that for the vast majority of artist/photographers - whatever - an upgrade is normally a positive thing. One more thing - the mac G5's can address up to 8 GB of memory: "64-bit processors enable the Power Mac G5 to break through the 4GB barrier and support up to 8GB of 400MHz, 128-bit DDR SDRAM � four times more than a typical PC. More main memory and fast 6.4 GBps throughput means you can write large projects to memory 40 times faster than to a hard disk." C Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell http://www.ChristerArt.com 3.5 million visitors to date.. On Mar 9, 2005, at 7:24 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote: > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > Subject: Re: Re: I don't know a justification for CS in real > photography > > Carolyn Frayn writes: > >> I don't even understand your point. > > The point is that upgrades are usually a waste of time and money. > >> Ya well, software has changed a little. > > Not really. It is always getting more bloated and complicated, but > that's about it. The complaints of IT managers today echo the > complaints of IT managers forty years ago. > >> Argh. > > You don't really know, do you? A new version came out, and you bought > it. No real analysis of cost vs. benefit. That's how most computer > users do things, thanks to heavy conditioning by computer hardware and > software vendors. > > In the olden days, before times got tough, people were conditioned to > do > the same thing with cars. That's not as common today, although a few > people still feel they have to buy a new car simply because there are > new cars to buy. > >> Nope.. There were many in between. > > So what were the reasons for each incremental upgrade? There are only > a > few logically valid reasons for upgrading: > > - An upgrade fixes a bug that interferes with your work. > - An upgrade provides a feature that will be essential to your work. > - An upgrade is forced by compatibility issues with other people. > - An upgrade is forced by other upgrades (hardware or software). > > Note that features _essential_ to your work are extremely rare. Most > people are emotionally attracted to new features, but they don't > actually _need_ them. > >> I didn't say there were no delays, I said it was much faster. > > Speed gains are usually due to hardware upgrades. I don't recall ever > seeing speed gains with an upgrade of Photoshop, since each version > tends to be more bloated than its predecessor. > >> So we're all sheep then. Conditioned and simple minded, good to know. > > Yes. That's the current IT business model for desktop systems. > >> What does that have to do with upgrading photoshop. > > A great deal, since for some people Photoshop is part of a > mission-critical workflow. > >> And who dictates they are useless. > > It's not up to anyone to prove them useless; it's up to vendors to > prove > them useful, notably with respect to upgrades. Unless they can count > on > users upgrading blindly to each new version. > >> Your photography then, there are other sorts out here. > > The other sorts are more like digital art. If all you are doing is > emulating what used to be done in the darkroom, the functions you need > are pretty simple. If you are manipulating images beyond that, it's > not > just photography any more. > >> Do you print? > > I usually have a lab print, as it's cheaper and the quality is better > (for color photos). I can print my own black and white, but until I > dedicate a printer to B&W printing, the quality will not be optimal. > >> THAT costs money too... Bells and whistles to one are worthwhile tools >> to another. > > It's surprising how few bells and whistles can withstand the scrutiny > of > careful analysis, however. > >> That would be none of your business. > > No need to give it, as I know there was none. You never audited it, > anyway. Nobody ever does. If they did, they certainly wouldn't be > upgrading all the time. But Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, AMD, and other > vendors appreciate your business. > >> Oh yes, they're taking over.. Turn off adobe call home. > > That has always been the trend with all software, including Photoshop. > >> 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. > > Right. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]