I think we're in violent agreement. What I was trying to insinuate is that a given XP instance is likely running on an older machine, and running just fine, I might add, where the only real upgrade path is to buy new hardware. But if XP still does whatever the user needs, why bother?
I don't see MS doing this. They are still working on the business model when they were on the steep end of the curve, when the current version really did suck and the new version really was substantially better, or supported things (like usb) that you really needed. We're up on the flat end of the curve now, where an OS typically has small incremental changes from one version to the next, as it asymptotically approaches some ideal state. When you're here, the business model of huge bags of cash every couple of years when you release some new version that everyone is desperate for, just doesn't fit anymore.
You could see that they tried. Windows 8 was Radically Different, as you'd expect a couple decades ago when Radical Differences from one version to the next were expected and wanted. But we don't want that anymore. And Microsoft, even if they realize that, don't know how to adapt.
I think your solution above (Windows on a subscription system for updates) is practical, but MS would then have to adapt to a steady stream, rather than periodic truckloads of cash, and they're just not built to work like that.
So, after having a bad experience with 8, and having to go back to 7, I see that Microsoft renames 8.2 as 9 (to avoid name recognition or something) and says they have some really neat features in 9 that will win over users of 7. (I had first written "win over 7 users" which still might end up being true...)
Um, ok, these are the same people who "put the start button back" in an update to 8, which turned out to be merely an icon over the hot spot that takes you to the start screen. Which was very much not the point.
So now that they say Windows 9 will act completely differently and appropriately on a non-touch PC, (which is potentially a good thing and something they should have done from the start, but never mind) how (this is the important part) how can we believe them?
So, at very least, the safe bet is not to be an early adopter, and see what others think after it's been in the wild for, oh, say a year. Or two.
And completely besides the point, why would I want to leave 7? It works. It's still supported as far as I know. I don't want to be an OS Q/A person, I have more interesting things to do. (At least, more interesting to me.)
Now, if I had to buy a PC with 9 on it... no, that doesn't work either, because you can still ask for 7.
I can see where people who for some reason were forced to use 8 might be interested. Maybe that's the primary market.
Or just switch to Open Office or other derivatives.
That is exactly what I did. Unfortunately every once in a while one of my colleagues will send me a document (usually a power point presentation) that won't open in anything other than the newest version of office (and sometimes only the newest version on the same platform as their, to boot). They then get to listen to me cursing office for some time while I try to read their document.
This happens often, even with people who are using older versions of Office. My daughter's high school used to do this all the time -- append docx documents, get complaints from parents, and then re-save in doc format and resend. I dunno what kind of deal the school gets for software, but most of us, unless we've stolen a copy from work, are using an old version of Office or in some cases a third party equivalent.
So in your case, I'd do the same thing I did with daughter's high school teachers. Politely ask them to save the document in a less proprietary format and resend.
Seriously, I don't think I ever received anything from them that couldn't be sent in RTF format, but that's another story.
Actually... you know, using the internet is a cybersecurity threat. The highest security is, like, when the internet is quiet. (Inevitably someone says, Too quiet...)
It reminds me of what us sysadmins were always saying. This job would be so easy if it weren't for all the damned users.
my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format
When you "edit in" whatever it might be, Lightroom creates a TIFF file to edit, so RAW or no support for your camera is not an issue. You are covered, both on this issue and on the "cloud" issue.
Cloud issues besides, your first point appears not to be true. When you "edit in photoshop", it makes a copy of your original file, and then tries to open photoshop using that file. I have two Nikon bodies, both FX, one older than the other. "edit in photoshop" works for photos taken by the older camera. "edit in photoshop" produces a blank page in photoshop for photos taken by the newer camera. This is demonstrable and consistent. If your version of photoshop doesn't support camera raw for that particular camera, it's a fail.
Now, if you first export to something else, open photoshop and then open the file you exported, that might work. I'm currently experimenting with this. Obviously, exporting to jpg and then opening with photoshop works. But who wants to edit a jpg?
my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format
Can you not set Lightroom to pass the file to Photoshop in a specific format for external editing? I believe in either the Lightroom or catalog preferences you can specify tiff amongst others.
That's a good point. I could export to something else and open with photoshop. Not jpg of course, but tiff might be appropriate. Will try that.
Every Aperture user will have to change after X months.
Is it going to stop working? I still use a version of paint shop pro from 1998!! (I'm not a graphics pro obviously) It still works fine on windows 7!
...but you're using it to edit JPG images. Raw image formats are proprietary and change from vendor to vendor and camera to camera. For instance, I have an older Nikon body that is supported by very old versions of the Adobe suite, but my most recent body produces raw images that can only be opened by the most recent Adobe products. And not at all by Paint Shop Pro, I suspect.
Well, you sort-of do. Adobe doesn't provide raw updates for older versions of lightroom "for ever". I try to keep Lightroom up to date because it's fairly cost-effective -- my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format. I can't afford a more recent version right now, and the "cloud" version of Photoshop is out of the question, because I sometimes work in the field where there is no internet.
all but abortion, because abortion kills an innocent person, but in the big picture, yes, we shouldn't legislate morality that doesn't directly harm other people.
This is interesting. This is where libertarians traditionally split, with about half believing abortion is a mother's rights issue and should be entirely legal, and the other half believing abortion is a child's rights issue and should be forbidden. We generally agree to shelve the issue and work on something else instead.
The fact that something has an indirect effect on others is no reason to ban it, especially in the so-called "land of the free." Just about everything has some indirect effect on others. Hobbyist mountain climbing? Can't do that, as you might hurt yourself and damage your family emotionally and cost taxpayers money. Ice skating? Video gaming? Same thing. Get rid of all unnecessary activities, because otherwise you might indirectly affect others!
Nah. I'd rather pay more taxes, thanks.
Bicycling. Think of all those broken collar bones. And why do we allow children on bicycles at all? Let's start with requiring back braces, wrist, knee, elbow, hip armor, neck braces, and by the time we ban it altogether, people won't want to ride anymore anyway. Don't get me started on skateboards. And who thought it was safe to put wheels on the bottom of shoes?
I mean, you see things going that direction. Drive by a grade school playground these days and see how many kids are just standing around.
I don't think it's just about sugary drinks. That's just the low hanging fruit. As it were.
Caveat: I can't stand soft drinks and don't understand what people see in them. But inevitably, the eye of the government will turn towards some activity that I *do* want to do, and I'd rather not wait until then.
Ah, abuse. For just one example, there are cases of ACPI drivers for Windows 7 that do not work in Windows 8 (you get a continuous stream of error popups). At this time neither Microsoft nor Asus have a solution. I bring this up because it was the final straw that caused me to revert to Windows 7.
Google "driver problems with Windows 8" for more information. (A lot more...)
Does anyone feel like this could potentially alter climactic patterns across the whole continent? No big deal, just a fairly large mountain range where there wasn't previously one.
Good point... that could be really interesting. Let's build it and find out.
> This idea is so batshit crazy...I think we should do it. I don't even care whether it works as advertised. The Great Wall of China will pale in comparison.
The idea of doing a gigantic project just because it's batshit crazy has an appeal, I grant you.
> This could be our Apollo.
Erm... we already had our Apollo... unless you're talking "our generation", in which case, get off my lawn.
If we're going to send the Mexicans back anyway, sending the drug using Americans back in the same bus works for me. (A selling point might be that they'd be closer to the drugs.) Let's also send the business owners who increase profits by using "undocumented" workers as near-slave labor.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're in violent agreement. What I was trying to insinuate is that a given XP instance is likely running on an older machine, and running just fine, I might add, where the only real upgrade path is to buy new hardware. But if XP still does whatever the user needs, why bother?
I don't see MS doing this. They are still working on the business model when they were on the steep end of the curve, when the current version really did suck and the new version really was substantially better, or supported things (like usb) that you really needed. We're up on the flat end of the curve now, where an OS typically has small incremental changes from one version to the next, as it asymptotically approaches some ideal state. When you're here, the business model of huge bags of cash every couple of years when you release some new version that everyone is desperate for, just doesn't fit anymore.
You could see that they tried. Windows 8 was Radically Different, as you'd expect a couple decades ago when Radical Differences from one version to the next were expected and wanted. But we don't want that anymore. And Microsoft, even if they realize that, don't know how to adapt.
I think your solution above (Windows on a subscription system for updates) is practical, but MS would then have to adapt to a steady stream, rather than periodic truckloads of cash, and they're just not built to work like that.
> ... is to win over Windows 7 hold outs.
What about us Windows XP hold outs you insensitive clod ?!
Well, your machine probably doesn't have the guts to run Win9, so you're pretty much stuck with XP.
Unless there is a need for the end user to edit the document, docs should be sent as PDF, not an editable format.
Very good point. It's just laziness, I think.
So, after having a bad experience with 8, and having to go back to 7, I see that Microsoft renames 8.2 as 9 (to avoid name recognition or something) and says they have some really neat features in 9 that will win over users of 7. (I had first written "win over 7 users" which still might end up being true...)
Um, ok, these are the same people who "put the start button back" in an update to 8, which turned out to be merely an icon over the hot spot that takes you to the start screen. Which was very much not the point.
So now that they say Windows 9 will act completely differently and appropriately on a non-touch PC, (which is potentially a good thing and something they should have done from the start, but never mind) how (this is the important part) how can we believe them?
So, at very least, the safe bet is not to be an early adopter, and see what others think after it's been in the wild for, oh, say a year. Or two.
And completely besides the point, why would I want to leave 7? It works. It's still supported as far as I know. I don't want to be an OS Q/A person, I have more interesting things to do. (At least, more interesting to me.)
Now, if I had to buy a PC with 9 on it... no, that doesn't work either, because you can still ask for 7.
I can see where people who for some reason were forced to use 8 might be interested. Maybe that's the primary market.
Or just switch to Open Office or other derivatives.
That is exactly what I did. Unfortunately every once in a while one of my colleagues will send me a document (usually a power point presentation) that won't open in anything other than the newest version of office (and sometimes only the newest version on the same platform as their, to boot). They then get to listen to me cursing office for some time while I try to read their document.
This happens often, even with people who are using older versions of Office. My daughter's high school used to do this all the time -- append docx documents, get complaints from parents, and then re-save in doc format and resend. I dunno what kind of deal the school gets for software, but most of us, unless we've stolen a copy from work, are using an old version of Office or in some cases a third party equivalent.
So in your case, I'd do the same thing I did with daughter's high school teachers. Politely ask them to save the document in a less proprietary format and resend.
Seriously, I don't think I ever received anything from them that couldn't be sent in RTF format, but that's another story.
Actually... you know, using the internet is a cybersecurity threat. The highest security is, like, when the internet is quiet. (Inevitably someone says, Too quiet...)
It reminds me of what us sysadmins were always saying. This job would be so easy if it weren't for all the damned users.
my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format
When you "edit in" whatever it might be, Lightroom creates a TIFF file to edit, so RAW or no support for your camera is not an issue. You are covered, both on this issue and on the "cloud" issue.
Cloud issues besides, your first point appears not to be true. When you "edit in photoshop", it makes a copy of your original file, and then tries to open photoshop using that file. I have two Nikon bodies, both FX, one older than the other. "edit in photoshop" works for photos taken by the older camera. "edit in photoshop" produces a blank page in photoshop for photos taken by the newer camera. This is demonstrable and consistent. If your version of photoshop doesn't support camera raw for that particular camera, it's a fail.
Now, if you first export to something else, open photoshop and then open the file you exported, that might work. I'm currently experimenting with this. Obviously, exporting to jpg and then opening with photoshop works. But who wants to edit a jpg?
my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format
Can you not set Lightroom to pass the file to Photoshop in a specific format for external editing? I believe in either the Lightroom or catalog preferences you can specify tiff amongst others.
That's a good point. I could export to something else and open with photoshop. Not jpg of course, but tiff might be appropriate. Will try that.
Is it going to stop working? I still use a version of paint shop pro from 1998!! (I'm not a graphics pro obviously) It still works fine on windows 7!
It's a racket. (Mutter...)
Well, you sort-of do. Adobe doesn't provide raw updates for older versions of lightroom "for ever". I try to keep Lightroom up to date because it's fairly cost-effective -- my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format. I can't afford a more recent version right now, and the "cloud" version of Photoshop is out of the question, because I sometimes work in the field where there is no internet.
Hey, that works for me.
all but abortion, because abortion kills an innocent person, but in the big picture, yes, we shouldn't legislate morality that doesn't directly harm other people.
This is interesting. This is where libertarians traditionally split, with about half believing abortion is a mother's rights issue and should be entirely legal, and the other half believing abortion is a child's rights issue and should be forbidden. We generally agree to shelve the issue and work on something else instead.
For most of those, me too.
> Remember, every intrusion will sound good to some segment of the population.
That is brilliant and succinct. I may ask to borrow it.
The fact that something has an indirect effect on others is no reason to ban it, especially in the so-called "land of the free." Just about everything has some indirect effect on others. Hobbyist mountain climbing? Can't do that, as you might hurt yourself and damage your family emotionally and cost taxpayers money. Ice skating? Video gaming? Same thing. Get rid of all unnecessary activities, because otherwise you might indirectly affect others!
Nah. I'd rather pay more taxes, thanks.
Bicycling. Think of all those broken collar bones. And why do we allow children on bicycles at all? Let's start with requiring back braces, wrist, knee, elbow, hip armor, neck braces, and by the time we ban it altogether, people won't want to ride anymore anyway. Don't get me started on skateboards. And who thought it was safe to put wheels on the bottom of shoes?
I mean, you see things going that direction. Drive by a grade school playground these days and see how many kids are just standing around.
I don't think it's just about sugary drinks. That's just the low hanging fruit. As it were.
Caveat: I can't stand soft drinks and don't understand what people see in them. But inevitably, the eye of the government will turn towards some activity that I *do* want to do, and I'd rather not wait until then.
> We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.
But MAN.... that'd be cool to watch. From a safe distance.
Ripley recommends from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Ah, abuse. For just one example, there are cases of ACPI drivers for Windows 7 that do not work in Windows 8 (you get a continuous stream of error popups). At this time neither Microsoft nor Asus have a solution. I bring this up because it was the final straw that caused me to revert to Windows 7.
Google "driver problems with Windows 8" for more information. (A lot more...)
Does anyone feel like this could potentially alter climactic patterns across the whole continent? No big deal, just a fairly large mountain range where there wasn't previously one.
Good point... that could be really interesting. Let's build it and find out.
> People could stop living in places where a tornado comes through every few years.
Unfortunately, that's where the food grows.
> You hear the same complaints about people living in flood plains
I think you do have a point there.
> We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.
But MAN.... that'd be cool to watch. From a safe distance.
> This idea is so batshit crazy...I think we should do it. I don't even care whether it works as advertised. The Great Wall of China will pale in comparison.
The idea of doing a gigantic project just because it's batshit crazy has an appeal, I grant you.
> This could be our Apollo.
Erm... we already had our Apollo... unless you're talking "our generation", in which case, get off my lawn.
Wouldn't giant fans at strategic places perform the same function?
If we're going to send the Mexicans back anyway, sending the drug using Americans back in the same bus works for me. (A selling point might be that they'd be closer to the drugs.) Let's also send the business owners who increase profits by using "undocumented" workers as near-slave labor.
I want a Dick Tracy 2 way wrist TV that operates by audio commands. I mean audio commands that actually work in some reasonable fashion. Not:
"Call Chuck at home."
"You said have sex with woodland animals behind your house?"