" But the only reason it was better was that it was preinstalled. Featurewise, both browsers were about equal... but IE was already there, and it was good enough, so there was no reason to download Netscape."
Wrong. IE 4+ didn't crash when you looked at it the wrong way. They couldn't even get Netscape to be stable while running in Linux, can't blame Windows for that.
There's a reason the term "Nutscrape" became quite prevalent in the net culture.
"I mean, we could lighten the interface from graphics so that it loads quickly..."
You could always use Opera and just turn graphics off. I did that on a crappy dialup connection once. Without graphics, the net behaves almost like it does with broadband.
" Was IE better than Netscape during the browser war? or was it just because MS preinstalled IE in all Windows, and Windows happens to be one of the most used OS?"
Yes, IE was better than Netscape. It wasn't at first. It was lacking in many ways, and as a result, people flocked towards Netscape. When version 4 came out of both apps, Microsoft had gotten their act together, and suddenly Netscape wasn't such an interesting browser anymore. They just weren't doing enough to make their app better.
Microsoft didn't win because IE was preinstalled, it won because it was a better browser. If what you were saying was true, then Netscape would never have had half the marketshare.
Are we going to see Google balloon up to what Altavista used to look like, then to fight a competitor slim back down to what Google (and Altavista) is like now? Then have it balloon back up as new stuff comes along?
Just curious. It reminds me of a management cycle that Scott Adams wrote about once. "We need to decentralize to be more efficient!" Then, a few months later "We need to centralize in order to focus on our coure strengths". Then, repeat. heh.
"Microsoft will eventually integrate a search engine into Windows just as they are going to integrate an anti-virus product and have already integrated MediaPlayer. It's just a matter of when."
So? That doesn't mean they'll kill Google. What will kill Google is if MS's search engine is better. I don't see that happening for a couple of iterations.
"If Google really was offered $10 billion by Microsoft and turned it down, then they were stupid."....
10 billion? With a b, billion? Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?
I don't understand why they can trademark Playstation. The word 'play' is a common term when talking about video games. Nintendo should be able to call their new system the Laystation.
Re:Japanese developers allergic to worldwide launc
on
Sony Delays PSP To 2005
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"It seems that many japanese companies like to tease us Americans for a while while they have the latest gadgetry...."
I read in a magazine somewhere that part of that delay is that it takes like 6 months to FCC approve a game system, Japan doesn't have that sort of wait.
I would, of course, appreciate details on this. This is the same magazine that said the N64 was going to run at a 'zippy 500mhz'. They didn't understand that it was just the memory bus.
Photoshop not only supports multi-monitor, but you can save your pallette locations and load them back in on a whim. This is not only useful for working with different aspect ratios, but also for multi-monitor as well.
Photoshop is quiet pleasant with multiple monitors, and I don't have to go running around my taskbar.
"What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features?"
Because some of us already have Photoshop. So to use GIMP, despite it's price tag, it would have to be better.
Not everything is about price. There is a cost to 'free'. If I have to tell my client I can't do something he asked because GIMP hasn't copied a critical feature yet (and believe me, it is missing a few of those), then I haven't saved $600. I'm not making up wild extremes here. There's a reason why a lot of places have several programs that are similar in nature. It's not uncommon for an artist to have both Photoshop and Corel Draw, for example.
"How is this accomplished with photoshop? Can it be done with just photoshop or does it require another purchase?"
Photoshop's automation tools make that really easy. Hit 'record', give it a name, go through the process, then hit stop. It records the actions you've performed and makes a button out of them. You can even say "Go look at this directory and go through each of these files and repeat these steps". It's powerful, and doesn't take long to get it running.
Adobe also has a scripting client for Photoshop, free for download from their site, but I should let you know I haven't used it yet. Haven't needed to.
"You can't do that so easily with Photoshop unless you've already invested the time and money to make it common practice. (Which, sadly, a lot of firms do. It's easier to commit to trudging an extra couple of miles in familiar territory than risk learning something new.)"
This might be a killer app if artists tended to be heavy into scripting. About the only thing most of us would use it for would be automating a bunch of repetitive tasks, and Photoshop has a wonderful macro recorder that handles that with a nice useful UI.
The R&D for GIMP is coming from a software engineer's perspective, not an artist's. I don't really have an issue with that until people start asking why us "stupid people would pay so much for an app." It's sort of like asking why somebody would drive with a manual transmission. Frustrating, iddn't it?
The R&D for GIMP, if it has aspirations to compete with Photoshop, need to change gears. Those of us that make livings off the software want our healing brushes more than we want perl scripting.
"Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded..."
Faded? A few days ago, a buddy of mine decided to venture into the wonderful world of Texturing as it related to 3D animation. He took a digital photo and wanted me to help him make a textur. He didn't have Photoshop, so he downloaded Gimp. I use Photoshop on a daily basis, I've gotten to know virtually all the features in it. I've learned quite a bit about how to do some of the things you need to do. I don't mean just what buttons to push, but what is being done to the image to get to the result. I sat down at his computer and started flipping through the features in Gimp and.. ouch. It felt like Photoshop lite. It was very limited in what transparency modes it had. There was almost none of the workflow shortcuts that PS has, like Layer sets etc. My experience trying to paint or smudge was... inconsistent. It's like they didn't tune it to what an artist would use it for.
That was about as far as I got. GIMP is not in a state right now where it'd save me $150 for the next PS upgrade. Not only that, but Adobe's chugging ahead with new stuff as well. (I can't believe what an upgrade 7 was from 6...)
I'm going to be honest with you: I think most of the peeps that are dependent on Photoshop are terribly interested in voicing in on this argument, thus the perception that it's "faded". No, it's not Photoshop. But that's not really the question, is it? It's "is it Photoshop enough for you?" Well that's a different deal. You can do your cropping, color balancing, contrasting, etc. That's fine. Just don't get too general about this. Photoshop is a $600 tool. Mastering it can earn you a living. Apps like that are very difficult to keep up with in the Open Source world.
"It's nice seeing someone who isnt the usual/.er with blind hatred towards MS "
Thank you.
Unfortunately it earns me accusations that I own MS stock or something. I just want more objectivity and less "I hate them so everything they do is wrong".
"Whoa, stop right there. Music is on an entirely different level from any other artistic work. Music is protected to the point of absurdity."
Can't say I totally agree with this. I didn't realize how similar the two are until this MP3 downloading business started. It's so similar that every time there's a major story here, all the visual art forums are abuzz about it.
"You don't need to know anything at all about music to come up with four notes that sound interesting together, and it's laughable to imagine that in the last million years those notes have never been performed in that order."
The same can be said for visual art. You know those little smilies that you see when you post on web forums? 16 by 16 pixels.. and they can be protected. The 7-11 logo, protected. Lucent's "brown O of quality" logo that looks like a coffee stain, protected.
"Can you imagine any four bits of data that would have so much protection in any other endeavour?"
Like stock symbols? Yeah, not the greatest example, but think about it for a bit.
"The written word doesn't offer that much protection, computer programming doesn't offer that much protection, "
There was a trademark issued to a game company back in the N64 days... Sadly, I don't remember who it was, but they registerred "hi-rez". Couldn't tell you if it went through or not, but they were of only a few companies that were using the high resolution mode in the N64. Funny, eh?
"I have quite a bit of respect for modelers and artists. The attention they recieve doesn't come close to the impact their work makes on a finished product."
Sadly, that is the life of a commercial artist. You don't normally get your name in lights. I'm not entirely saddened by it, though. A lot of the work done is designed by somebody else, and it isn't always the central focus of what makes the content great. I love the X-Wing fighter, for example. But I cannot tell you who designed it. Why? Well, frankly, it wasn't critical to Luke Skywalker's destruction of the Death Star. That sort of make sense? Sorry if it doesn't. I'm not feeling all that well today.
"But the equivalent of these sampling cases to the modeller's world would be suing over 4 or 5 pixels in a texture."
Heh. Well I don't know about court, but I can share a little story with you. You've seen the starship Excelsior, I assume? (The new sleek ship featured in Star Trek III and in subsequent movies?) On the surface of this ship, there are hull panels that loosely look like an Aztec design. A forum I used to frequent was populated by Star Trek fans with an interest in 3D art. Often models were built and released publically so others can pick them up and generate artwork with them. One guy built his own model of the Excelsior, and borrowed that aztec texture from another model. Shortly after posting it, somebody said "Excuse me, but I don't think [INSERT ARTIST'S NAME HERE} gave you permission to use that texture!" Whoah boy did a ruckus start. There was no question that he 'borrowed' the texture, but the heat he took for it for not crediting the guy was.. well.. amazing. Again, this isn't a court thing, but it is the type of event that can cause panties to collectively bunch up. Hmm.. I think it'd be sort of like 'borrowing' a mathematical equation from a publically licensed app and using it in a recognizable way in your own app, without crediting them. Ugh I can't think of a more visual example, here's hoping that I got that idea more or less across anyway. Imagine the clenched fists that would result from it.
Us artists are very territorial. Doesn't really matter if you're creating pictures or music, we want the credit.
For illustrating workflow, Visio is quite nice. You can draw boxes, add nice pretty lines to illustrate the workflow, type in notes, and make changes easily. We use it a lot where I work for diagramming system components and the architecture of the software (UI state design etc) that will be written for it.
For the design of the web pages, Photoshop is quite nice. If your designs are less aesthetic, then a cheaper app like Paint Shop pro may be right what you're looking for.
I would recommend, though keeping a whiteboard and post-it notes nearby. T'is generally a good practice to start really really small and work your way up.
One other thing to mention is to study what other sites have done. I mean really study it. Look at their structure and design themes they worked with. There is no harm in borrowing ideas here, especially if it helps the user in navigating your site.
Oh, you know, I have one other little piece of advice. Make sure to work in layers. Typically you've got your header, footer, and content as 3 seperate aspects to consider. I use Photoshop 7. It has a feature (not in 6, which is why I mention the version #...) called "layer sets". Basically,it means you can group a bunch of layers together, and on the layers tab you can chance the color of them. I didn't realize how important that feature would be until I worked on a web project with these distinct sets.
I'll be monitoring my post here. If any of you have more specific questions, fire 'em off. I love babbling about Photoshop.;)
"Well, talented artists are good enough to make their own music, so they don't have to sample. Eminem couldn't play a musical instrument if Suge Knight was threatening his life..."
Comments like this rub artists like myself the wrong way. Let me paint you all a little picture of my world, maybe this will help in understanding why sampling is part of the industry.
I'm a 3D artist. When you work in 3D, there are a lot of subcategories that one can go into. You can do texturing, character animation and rigging, visual effects, matte painting, and a few others that aren't readily popping into mind. I specialize in modelling with a secondary skill in design. What I mean by that is my talent in other areas isn't so strong. Am I talented a talented? There are lots of people who would say yes. Can I do character animation? Nope, I haven't climbed those steps yet. Does that mean I'm not a 3D artist? No.
So what do I do if I'm commisioned to do a project that requires other areas? Simple, I either license other stuff, or I get another person involved. Right now, I'm working on an Ore facility designed to operate on the surface of an asteroid, it's for a game. I've designed the station, gotten that approved, and now I'm building it. The thing is, my client needs it rendered with a backdrop. He has a very specific goal in mind and I have to complete it. I have so much time to get it done in. One of the things I need to do is make a realistic terrain for it. Well, that's not really my area. For one thing, I need textures for it. (note: What I'm about to describe is like sampling.) Now, I can't go to an asteroid and take some photos that I own the copyright to. So what do I do? Well, Nasa is pretty darn cool. They've got a lot of photos of the surface of the moon and on Mars that I can put together in Photoshop to create a new environment. This involves taking small pieces of their images and putting them together into something new. Nasa's agreement is pretty open about that. It says I can use their images provided I say "Courtesy of Nasa" in the credits. In addition to those images, I have a royatly free photo CD I purchased that more or less says "use it as you like, you've paid for it." So here I am, 'sampling' other artists work to meet this goal. I'm doing this LEGITIMATELY and ethically. (In other words, they'd be happy for this use.)
Now, there are exceptional artists out there who'd do it all. They'd probably design it, build it, hand-paint the textures, and do a lot of other things that somebody with years (decades even) of experience under their belts. (Craig Mullins, for example.) However, I'm not there yet. Most artists aren't. That's not because they suck, it's because it takes a long time to get there.
So let's get to Eminem here. So he can't play an instrument. So? That's not his talent. His talent is the lyrics he puts together. I can't say I'm a fan of his, but I have listened to his music, and he's definitely a guy with a style about him, and is most definitely an artist. Has he sampled music? Yep. There's a song called Stan that uses some chunks of some of Dido's work in it. If he were a 'talented artist', the way the parent poster is describing them, would this be a bad move? No for a couple of reasons: 1.) It fits the song. You have to hear it to understand, but it was an appropriate choice. 2.) He licensed use of that song. The result? A better piece. Could he have pursued his own? Eh maybe. Would that be automatically better? Automatically? No. It really depends on what your goal is.
Sampling is not an evil. It can be done wrong. You can grab a riff from a song and not get the permission to do it, that'd be awful. Artists are very protective of their work. I could grab a texture from somewhere and not acquire for it, that'd be equally wrong. Somebody could download somebody else's work and put their name on it
"I didn't say they were right to do so - i expressed no opinion about that -- i just asked how long you think it will take."
Fair enough, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
I was thinking more in a general sense about how the Slashdot community feels about Microsoft, but you're right that I focused it too heavily on you. Just so you understand, my frustration here isn't about blind defense of Microsoft. Rather, it's an attitude I percieve that Microsoft isn't being treated a objectively here as it should. As a result, I worry that the concerns expressed here (especially the valuable ones) won't be taken seriously by the people outside like the mainstream media. "Oh gee, Slashdot's got their panties in a twist again, of course they just hate Microsoft."
Hopefully, at least, you'll understand my point of view a little more clearly. I regret not being more tactful and forthcoming the first time around.
"Will the inclusion of A default Scanner kill Norton and Mcaffee? I think they are now sitting ducks. why buy what comes free with your new computer? "
Yeah, imagine if those companies had to make a better product to stay in business. The horror of competition.
Spare me the "oh it comes with the OS and nobody'll want to buy other stuff" argument. Microsoft rarely includes something with Windows that nobody can improve on. "Hey look! We have a Media Player app that doesn't ask if you want to upgrade 5 minutes into a video!"
Slashdot Mirror
" But the only reason it was better was that it was preinstalled. Featurewise, both browsers were about equal... but IE was already there, and it was good enough, so there was no reason to download Netscape."
Wrong. IE 4+ didn't crash when you looked at it the wrong way. They couldn't even get Netscape to be stable while running in Linux, can't blame Windows for that.
There's a reason the term "Nutscrape" became quite prevalent in the net culture.
"90% of filesharing is illegal, get over it."
The percentage is not that high. The guy providing copyrighted stuff is breaking the law. Not everybody downloading the copyrighted stuff is.
It's not as simple as you make it, get over it.
"I mean, we could lighten the interface from graphics so that it loads quickly..."
You could always use Opera and just turn graphics off. I did that on a crappy dialup connection once. Without graphics, the net behaves almost like it does with broadband.
"2. Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right..."
Heh. That was good.
" Was IE better than Netscape during the browser war? or was it just because MS preinstalled IE in all Windows, and Windows happens to be one of the most used OS?"
Yes, IE was better than Netscape. It wasn't at first. It was lacking in many ways, and as a result, people flocked towards Netscape. When version 4 came out of both apps, Microsoft had gotten their act together, and suddenly Netscape wasn't such an interesting browser anymore. They just weren't doing enough to make their app better.
Microsoft didn't win because IE was preinstalled, it won because it was a better browser. If what you were saying was true, then Netscape would never have had half the marketshare.
Are we going to see Google balloon up to what Altavista used to look like, then to fight a competitor slim back down to what Google (and Altavista) is like now? Then have it balloon back up as new stuff comes along?
Just curious. It reminds me of a management cycle that Scott Adams wrote about once. "We need to decentralize to be more efficient!" Then, a few months later "We need to centralize in order to focus on our coure strengths". Then, repeat. heh.
"Microsoft will eventually integrate a search engine into Windows just as they are going to integrate an anti-virus product and have already integrated MediaPlayer. It's just a matter of when."
....
So? That doesn't mean they'll kill Google. What will kill Google is if MS's search engine is better. I don't see that happening for a couple of iterations.
"If Google really was offered $10 billion by Microsoft and turned it down, then they were stupid."
10 billion? With a b, billion? Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?
Guess that's another one to submit to Snopes.com.
"can we really call it a PlayStation???"
I don't understand why they can trademark Playstation. The word 'play' is a common term when talking about video games. Nintendo should be able to call their new system the Laystation.
"It seems that many japanese companies like to tease us Americans for a while while they have the latest gadgetry...."
I read in a magazine somewhere that part of that delay is that it takes like 6 months to FCC approve a game system, Japan doesn't have that sort of wait.
I would, of course, appreciate details on this. This is the same magazine that said the N64 was going to run at a 'zippy 500mhz'. They didn't understand that it was just the memory bus.
Photoshop not only supports multi-monitor, but you can save your pallette locations and load them back in on a whim. This is not only useful for working with different aspect ratios, but also for multi-monitor as well.
Photoshop is quiet pleasant with multiple monitors, and I don't have to go running around my taskbar.
"Watch out PHOTOSHOP!"
Why? It's not like I can return Photoshop.
"What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features?"
Because some of us already have Photoshop. So to use GIMP, despite it's price tag, it would have to be better.
Not everything is about price. There is a cost to 'free'. If I have to tell my client I can't do something he asked because GIMP hasn't copied a critical feature yet (and believe me, it is missing a few of those), then I haven't saved $600. I'm not making up wild extremes here. There's a reason why a lot of places have several programs that are similar in nature. It's not uncommon for an artist to have both Photoshop and Corel Draw, for example.
"How is this accomplished with photoshop? Can it be done with just photoshop or does it require another purchase?"
Photoshop's automation tools make that really easy. Hit 'record', give it a name, go through the process, then hit stop. It records the actions you've performed and makes a button out of them. You can even say "Go look at this directory and go through each of these files and repeat these steps". It's powerful, and doesn't take long to get it running.
Adobe also has a scripting client for Photoshop, free for download from their site, but I should let you know I haven't used it yet. Haven't needed to.
"You can't do that so easily with Photoshop unless you've already invested the time and money to make it common practice. (Which, sadly, a lot of firms do. It's easier to commit to trudging an extra couple of miles in familiar territory than risk learning something new.)"
This might be a killer app if artists tended to be heavy into scripting. About the only thing most of us would use it for would be automating a bunch of repetitive tasks, and Photoshop has a wonderful macro recorder that handles that with a nice useful UI.
The R&D for GIMP is coming from a software engineer's perspective, not an artist's. I don't really have an issue with that until people start asking why us "stupid people would pay so much for an app." It's sort of like asking why somebody would drive with a manual transmission. Frustrating, iddn't it?
The R&D for GIMP, if it has aspirations to compete with Photoshop, need to change gears. Those of us that make livings off the software want our healing brushes more than we want perl scripting.
"Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded..."
Faded? A few days ago, a buddy of mine decided to venture into the wonderful world of Texturing as it related to 3D animation. He took a digital photo and wanted me to help him make a textur. He didn't have Photoshop, so he downloaded Gimp. I use Photoshop on a daily basis, I've gotten to know virtually all the features in it. I've learned quite a bit about how to do some of the things you need to do. I don't mean just what buttons to push, but what is being done to the image to get to the result. I sat down at his computer and started flipping through the features in Gimp and.. ouch. It felt like Photoshop lite. It was very limited in what transparency modes it had. There was almost none of the workflow shortcuts that PS has, like Layer sets etc. My experience trying to paint or smudge was... inconsistent. It's like they didn't tune it to what an artist would use it for.
That was about as far as I got. GIMP is not in a state right now where it'd save me $150 for the next PS upgrade. Not only that, but Adobe's chugging ahead with new stuff as well. (I can't believe what an upgrade 7 was from 6...)
I'm going to be honest with you: I think most of the peeps that are dependent on Photoshop are terribly interested in voicing in on this argument, thus the perception that it's "faded". No, it's not Photoshop. But that's not really the question, is it? It's "is it Photoshop enough for you?" Well that's a different deal. You can do your cropping, color balancing, contrasting, etc. That's fine. Just don't get too general about this. Photoshop is a $600 tool. Mastering it can earn you a living. Apps like that are very difficult to keep up with in the Open Source world.
"The horror of competition with a monopolist who can offer and update his products whenever he wants for "free"."
You're awfully smug for somebody who didn't read my entire post.
"It's nice seeing someone who isnt the usual /.er with blind hatred towards MS "
Thank you.
Unfortunately it earns me accusations that I own MS stock or something. I just want more objectivity and less "I hate them so everything they do is wrong".
If somebody had made a business of fixing MS's security holes for them, then this exact same conversation would be happening.
:P
LTNS btw,
"Whoa, stop right there. Music is on an entirely different level from any other artistic work. Music is protected to the point of absurdity."
.. well.. amazing. Again, this isn't a court thing, but it is the type of event that can cause panties to collectively bunch up. Hmm.. I think it'd be sort of like 'borrowing' a mathematical equation from a publically licensed app and using it in a recognizable way in your own app, without crediting them. Ugh I can't think of a more visual example, here's hoping that I got that idea more or less across anyway. Imagine the clenched fists that would result from it.
Can't say I totally agree with this. I didn't realize how similar the two are until this MP3 downloading business started. It's so similar that every time there's a major story here, all the visual art forums are abuzz about it.
"You don't need to know anything at all about music to come up with four notes that sound interesting together, and it's laughable to imagine that in the last million years those notes have never been performed in that order."
The same can be said for visual art. You know those little smilies that you see when you post on web forums? 16 by 16 pixels.. and they can be protected. The 7-11 logo, protected. Lucent's "brown O of quality" logo that looks like a coffee stain, protected.
"Can you imagine any four bits of data that would have so much protection in any other endeavour?"
Like stock symbols? Yeah, not the greatest example, but think about it for a bit.
"The written word doesn't offer that much protection, computer programming doesn't offer that much protection, "
There was a trademark issued to a game company back in the N64 days... Sadly, I don't remember who it was, but they registerred "hi-rez". Couldn't tell you if it went through or not, but they were of only a few companies that were using the high resolution mode in the N64. Funny, eh?
"I have quite a bit of respect for modelers and artists. The attention they recieve doesn't come close to the impact their work makes on a finished product."
Sadly, that is the life of a commercial artist. You don't normally get your name in lights. I'm not entirely saddened by it, though. A lot of the work done is designed by somebody else, and it isn't always the central focus of what makes the content great. I love the X-Wing fighter, for example. But I cannot tell you who designed it. Why? Well, frankly, it wasn't critical to Luke Skywalker's destruction of the Death Star. That sort of make sense? Sorry if it doesn't. I'm not feeling all that well today.
"But the equivalent of these sampling cases to the modeller's world would be suing over 4 or 5 pixels in a texture."
Heh. Well I don't know about court, but I can share a little story with you. You've seen the starship Excelsior, I assume? (The new sleek ship featured in Star Trek III and in subsequent movies?) On the surface of this ship, there are hull panels that loosely look like an Aztec design. A forum I used to frequent was populated by Star Trek fans with an interest in 3D art. Often models were built and released publically so others can pick them up and generate artwork with them. One guy built his own model of the Excelsior, and borrowed that aztec texture from another model. Shortly after posting it, somebody said "Excuse me, but I don't think [INSERT ARTIST'S NAME HERE} gave you permission to use that texture!" Whoah boy did a ruckus start. There was no question that he 'borrowed' the texture, but the heat he took for it for not crediting the guy was
Us artists are very territorial. Doesn't really matter if you're creating pictures or music, we want the credit.
For illustrating workflow, Visio is quite nice. You can draw boxes, add nice pretty lines to illustrate the workflow, type in notes, and make changes easily. We use it a lot where I work for diagramming system components and the architecture of the software (UI state design etc) that will be written for it.
;)
For the design of the web pages, Photoshop is quite nice. If your designs are less aesthetic, then a cheaper app like Paint Shop pro may be right what you're looking for.
I would recommend, though keeping a whiteboard and post-it notes nearby. T'is generally a good practice to start really really small and work your way up.
One other thing to mention is to study what other sites have done. I mean really study it. Look at their structure and design themes they worked with. There is no harm in borrowing ideas here, especially if it helps the user in navigating your site.
Oh, you know, I have one other little piece of advice. Make sure to work in layers. Typically you've got your header, footer, and content as 3 seperate aspects to consider. I use Photoshop 7. It has a feature (not in 6, which is why I mention the version #...) called "layer sets". Basically,it means you can group a bunch of layers together, and on the layers tab you can chance the color of them. I didn't realize how important that feature would be until I worked on a web project with these distinct sets.
I'll be monitoring my post here. If any of you have more specific questions, fire 'em off. I love babbling about Photoshop.
"Does that make Linux some kind of free lunch then?"
It's more like a cow and some un-peeled potatoes.
"Well, talented artists are good enough to make their own music, so they don't have to sample. Eminem couldn't play a musical instrument if Suge Knight was threatening his life..."
Comments like this rub artists like myself the wrong way. Let me paint you all a little picture of my world, maybe this will help in understanding why sampling is part of the industry.
I'm a 3D artist. When you work in 3D, there are a lot of subcategories that one can go into. You can do texturing, character animation and rigging, visual effects, matte painting, and a few others that aren't readily popping into mind. I specialize in modelling with a secondary skill in design. What I mean by that is my talent in other areas isn't so strong. Am I talented a talented? There are lots of people who would say yes. Can I do character animation? Nope, I haven't climbed those steps yet. Does that mean I'm not a 3D artist? No.
So what do I do if I'm commisioned to do a project that requires other areas? Simple, I either license other stuff, or I get another person involved. Right now, I'm working on an Ore facility designed to operate on the surface of an asteroid, it's for a game. I've designed the station, gotten that approved, and now I'm building it. The thing is, my client needs it rendered with a backdrop. He has a very specific goal in mind and I have to complete it. I have so much time to get it done in. One of the things I need to do is make a realistic terrain for it. Well, that's not really my area. For one thing, I need textures for it. (note: What I'm about to describe is like sampling.) Now, I can't go to an asteroid and take some photos that I own the copyright to. So what do I do? Well, Nasa is pretty darn cool. They've got a lot of photos of the surface of the moon and on Mars that I can put together in Photoshop to create a new environment. This involves taking small pieces of their images and putting them together into something new. Nasa's agreement is pretty open about that. It says I can use their images provided I say "Courtesy of Nasa" in the credits. In addition to those images, I have a royatly free photo CD I purchased that more or less says "use it as you like, you've paid for it." So here I am, 'sampling' other artists work to meet this goal. I'm doing this LEGITIMATELY and ethically. (In other words, they'd be happy for this use.)
Now, there are exceptional artists out there who'd do it all. They'd probably design it, build it, hand-paint the textures, and do a lot of other things that somebody with years (decades even) of experience under their belts. (Craig Mullins, for example.) However, I'm not there yet. Most artists aren't. That's not because they suck, it's because it takes a long time to get there.
So let's get to Eminem here. So he can't play an instrument. So? That's not his talent. His talent is the lyrics he puts together. I can't say I'm a fan of his, but I have listened to his music, and he's definitely a guy with a style about him, and is most definitely an artist. Has he sampled music? Yep. There's a song called Stan that uses some chunks of some of Dido's work in it. If he were a 'talented artist', the way the parent poster is describing them, would this be a bad move? No for a couple of reasons: 1.) It fits the song. You have to hear it to understand, but it was an appropriate choice. 2.) He licensed use of that song. The result? A better piece. Could he have pursued his own? Eh maybe. Would that be automatically better? Automatically? No. It really depends on what your goal is.
Sampling is not an evil. It can be done wrong. You can grab a riff from a song and not get the permission to do it, that'd be awful. Artists are very protective of their work. I could grab a texture from somewhere and not acquire for it, that'd be equally wrong. Somebody could download somebody else's work and put their name on it
No problem. :)
Lemme know if you like the artwork, I contributed pretty heavily to it.
"I didn't say they were right to do so - i expressed no opinion about that -- i just asked how long you think it will take."
Fair enough, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
I was thinking more in a general sense about how the Slashdot community feels about Microsoft, but you're right that I focused it too heavily on you.
Just so you understand, my frustration here isn't about blind defense of Microsoft. Rather, it's an attitude I percieve that Microsoft isn't being treated a objectively here as it should. As a result, I worry that the concerns expressed here (especially the valuable ones) won't be taken seriously by the people outside like the mainstream media. "Oh gee, Slashdot's got their panties in a twist again, of course they just hate Microsoft."
Hopefully, at least, you'll understand my point of view a little more clearly. I regret not being more tactful and forthcoming the first time around.
"Will the inclusion of A default Scanner kill Norton and Mcaffee? I think they are now sitting ducks. why buy what comes free with your new computer? "
Yeah, imagine if those companies had to make a better product to stay in business. The horror of competition.
Spare me the "oh it comes with the OS and nobody'll want to buy other stuff" argument. Microsoft rarely includes something with Windows that nobody can improve on. "Hey look! We have a Media Player app that doesn't ask if you want to upgrade 5 minutes into a video!"