No, no, no. I don't care what state, the Feds will be exempt from all state taxes; not-for-profit private, quasi-governmental and government entities would also be exempt.
In Texas, sales tax is charged whenever there is an "end product" involved. The way the law reads, we are to not charge tax on work like discovery, project management and design, but actual development work is taxed if it produces an "end product."
Thanks, Michael. I do understand your point, and yes, throwing more memory at the application is a good solution.
I do not think, though, that Windows is very good about swapping. I'm still wondering why the disk cache takes precedence and can swap out my Outlook application during a backup or when copying a bunch of files. This is something I understand that is being addressed in Vista.
"Ever wonder why that option exists? It is BECAUSE it cannot guarantee swapping by the OS, so as a hack, you allocate far less memory than is physically available in the hopes that Windows will not swap."
I'm not following your explanation, but the reason for any such feature is performance. It's interesting that the authors of PS felt they couldn't figure out what that setting should be on their own. Why do you think that is? If such a feature did have significant performance impact, you'd think they'd test a variety of configurations and tune the app appropriately. Frankly, I think it was a lame effort to emulate the mac platform by a bunch of programmers who thought in mac terms. No other PC app was like that.
It wasn't that they couldn't figure it out, it's that there is no real solution. With WIN32 you can ask that Windows not swap you, and you can bump your priority, however, there is no guarantee your memory won't be swapped. The fact is Photoshop's memory management works very well as it knows what/when to swap.
"Hell, ever stop to think why Photoshop still creates and uses its own swap file? Why not just use Windows VMM? Ever think about that?"
Yeah, I've thought about it. I've even played with it by varying the PS settings for it on my Windows boxes. Love to see a thorough benchmarking of the feature since I'm not convinced it's important. It is a fact, though, that specific knowledge of an application can lead to optimizations of things like memory usage. OSes, which lack that knowledge, have a great deal of effort put into making them work well. Do you have any benchmarks that show Windows PS benefitting from the feature?
You would be surprised, but not so when you figure out that swapping 4k pages (like Windows will) versus swapping 64k or 128k chunks of memory you are less likely to need (like Photoshop). The I/O difference is significant. For instance, Photoshop could swap, say, the undo buffer first as that is less likely to be used than the image. Stuff like that.
"All I am saying is that OS9 was very nice for applications like Photoshop that required large blocks of memory."
I understand that, but the bottom line is which platform actually ran Photoshop better? In recent history and up until the G5, Adobe said that the PC did due to the mac's relative lack of processor. If you recall, Abobe actually issued a press release stating that the PC was the platform of choice specifically because of performance, then they backed away from the statement when the G5 was announced. It doesn't matter that you can pin memory on OS 9. It only matters that the application runs well. According to Adobe it did not compared to the PC.
Marketing.
"..but any prepress person will tell you they dropped it for OS/X not by choice..."
You mean prepress people who use macs. Professionals who used macs frequently stayed with OS 9. It was familiar and OS X had a lot of issues early in its history.
In the 90s, all prepress was on Macintosh. That's probably still true, though I have been out of the industry for about five years, so I can't say definitively now. My guess is most, still.
You have to understand that prepress managers are under pressure to get the job done, fast. There's enough dinking around with fonts, broken files and finicky output devices that they have no time for broken applications (like when OS/X first arrived). They knew their OS9 machines, and they knew how to be efficient with them.
Isn't it ironic that today's macs can't run software written for macs just 7 years ago yet, through available unix DOS emulators, they may be able to run DOS apps from 25 years ago? I used to do that with my unix boxes and I'd be surprised if it didn't work on OS X.
Yes, and this was a big hurdle early on for OS/X. But then again, it's a totally foreign OS to OS9 applications.
Ever wonder why that option exists? It is BECAUSE it cannot guarantee swapping by the OS, so as a hack, you allocate far less memory than is physically available in the hopes that Windows will not swap.
That option was first available on the Windows version in 3.0 of Photoshop; it was not available on the Mac OS9 version as it was not necessary.
Hell, ever stop to think why Photoshop still creates and uses its own swap file? Why not just use Windows VMM? Ever think about that?
Look, I fully understand the merits of VMM. All I am saying is that OS9 was very nice for applications like Photoshop that required large blocks of memory. I realize OS9 was antiquated in other ways, but any prepress person will tell you they dropped it for OS/X not by choice, but because they were forced to when Apple stopped supporting it on the newer Macs.
I beg to differ. While I agree that VMM was essentially non-existent in OS9, being able to lock down large chunks of memory and manage it yourself is great for software that deals with huge graphic images. Photoshop, for instance, tiles images into smaller chunks and has it's own internal VMM to deal with those tiles in an way that is very, very efficient.
I personally loved the Mac's back in the 90's. I built a very successful commercial retouching business where our primary software/hardware was Photoshop on OS9 Mac's. OS9 performed well as you could lock down memory and dedicate it to Photoshop (no OS swapping). This is something that is sorely missing from OS/X and Windows.
Yes, there were/are WIN32 calls to ask Windows to not swap, however, there is really no guarantee. (Maybe there is now?) Photoshop has a more efficient swapping mechanism based on image tiles rather than the OS with small pages.
For the general business or home computer user, I agree, the 90's Dell's years. Apple fell short of expectations.
I think Apple's success with the iPod and iTunes really boosted their overall marketing effort. Had it not been for those products, we probably would not be having this discussion.
Yeah, well I've seen a LOT of poor Perl/PHP code. Hand coding is far more conducive to producing sloppy code than GUI's like Dreamweaver and Visual Studio. There are better technologies out there, v3x0r, stop hanging on--you may be surprised at how fast you can code when you don't hit the browser refresh button every ten seconds.
I do understand where you are coming from as I've had many people like yourself work for me over the years. They always think hand coding is the only way, mostly because that's all they know. "Those so-called web designers/developers just drag-and-drop and then I have to go clean up their code." Blah, blah, blah. Heard it many times. Once we require them to use Visual Studio, after a few days they absolutely love it, especially some of the features like context-sensitive help and powerful debugging. "Dude, this is cool, I can actually step into the SQL Stored Procedure!" This is what I've been trying to tell you, ya ding-dong.
Seriously, dude, you are limiting yourself.
Now, I am not saying this is end all. We do a lot of Interwoven stuff where Perl/CGI is required, and others where Python, for instance, is required (I do like Python), but it's always a pleasure to get back into the IDE.
Agreed. I read an article recently about how Wal-Mart buys only coach tickets on commercial flights, even for senior-level executives (President, CEO). If the employees want to upgrade, they can, but on their own nickel.
-Greg
I agree. I bought a Motorola Bluetooth headset a few months ago for about $80. I never could get used to it. The mic picked up a lot of background noise, the sound was poor, and I could not get used to it hanging on my ear. I use a Plantronics wired headset now (about $35 from Radio Shack). It's not as convenient, with a wire and all, but the sound and mic quality are great.
-Greg
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no. I don't care what state, the Feds will be exempt from all state taxes; not-for-profit private, quasi-governmental and government entities would also be exempt.
In Texas, sales tax is charged whenever there is an "end product" involved. The way the law reads, we are to not charge tax on work like discovery, project management and design, but actual development work is taxed if it produces an "end product."
-G
Thanks, Michael. I do understand your point, and yes, throwing more memory at the application is a good solution.
I do not think, though, that Windows is very good about swapping. I'm still wondering why the disk cache takes precedence and can swap out my Outlook application during a backup or when copying a bunch of files. This is something I understand that is being addressed in Vista.
-G
It wasn't that they couldn't figure it out, it's that there is no real solution. With WIN32 you can ask that Windows not swap you, and you can bump your priority, however, there is no guarantee your memory won't be swapped. The fact is Photoshop's memory management works very well as it knows what/when to swap.
You would be surprised, but not so when you figure out that swapping 4k pages (like Windows will) versus swapping 64k or 128k chunks of memory you are less likely to need (like Photoshop). The I/O difference is significant. For instance, Photoshop could swap, say, the undo buffer first as that is less likely to be used than the image. Stuff like that.
Marketing.
In the 90s, all prepress was on Macintosh. That's probably still true, though I have been out of the industry for about five years, so I can't say definitively now. My guess is most, still.
You have to understand that prepress managers are under pressure to get the job done, fast. There's enough dinking around with fonts, broken files and finicky output devices that they have no time for broken applications (like when OS/X first arrived). They knew their OS9 machines, and they knew how to be efficient with them.
Yes, and this was a big hurdle early on for OS/X. But then again, it's a totally foreign OS to OS9 applications.
-GEver wonder why that option exists? It is BECAUSE it cannot guarantee swapping by the OS, so as a hack, you allocate far less memory than is physically available in the hopes that Windows will not swap.
That option was first available on the Windows version in 3.0 of Photoshop; it was not available on the Mac OS9 version as it was not necessary.
Hell, ever stop to think why Photoshop still creates and uses its own swap file? Why not just use Windows VMM? Ever think about that?
Look, I fully understand the merits of VMM. All I am saying is that OS9 was very nice for applications like Photoshop that required large blocks of memory. I realize OS9 was antiquated in other ways, but any prepress person will tell you they dropped it for OS/X not by choice, but because they were forced to when Apple stopped supporting it on the newer Macs.
-G
2 GB of RAM? How about a 500 Mb Photoshop file (NOT uncommon in the prepress industry), 1 undo, cut-and-paste. Swap. -G
I beg to differ. While I agree that VMM was essentially non-existent in OS9, being able to lock down large chunks of memory and manage it yourself is great for software that deals with huge graphic images. Photoshop, for instance, tiles images into smaller chunks and has it's own internal VMM to deal with those tiles in an way that is very, very efficient.
-G
I personally loved the Mac's back in the 90's. I built a very successful commercial retouching business where our primary software/hardware was Photoshop on OS9 Mac's. OS9 performed well as you could lock down memory and dedicate it to Photoshop (no OS swapping). This is something that is sorely missing from OS/X and Windows.
Yes, there were/are WIN32 calls to ask Windows to not swap, however, there is really no guarantee. (Maybe there is now?) Photoshop has a more efficient swapping mechanism based on image tiles rather than the OS with small pages.
For the general business or home computer user, I agree, the 90's Dell's years. Apple fell short of expectations.
I think Apple's success with the iPod and iTunes really boosted their overall marketing effort. Had it not been for those products, we probably would not be having this discussion.
-G
Yeah, well I've seen a LOT of poor Perl/PHP code. Hand coding is far more conducive to producing sloppy code than GUI's like Dreamweaver and Visual Studio. There are better technologies out there, v3x0r, stop hanging on--you may be surprised at how fast you can code when you don't hit the browser refresh button every ten seconds.
I do understand where you are coming from as I've had many people like yourself work for me over the years. They always think hand coding is the only way, mostly because that's all they know. "Those so-called web designers/developers just drag-and-drop and then I have to go clean up their code." Blah, blah, blah. Heard it many times. Once we require them to use Visual Studio, after a few days they absolutely love it, especially some of the features like context-sensitive help and powerful debugging. "Dude, this is cool, I can actually step into the SQL Stored Procedure!" This is what I've been trying to tell you, ya ding-dong.
Seriously, dude, you are limiting yourself.
Now, I am not saying this is end all. We do a lot of Interwoven stuff where Perl/CGI is required, and others where Python, for instance, is required (I do like Python), but it's always a pleasure to get back into the IDE.
Agreed. I read an article recently about how Wal-Mart buys only coach tickets on commercial flights, even for senior-level executives (President, CEO). If the employees want to upgrade, they can, but on their own nickel. -Greg
I agree. I bought a Motorola Bluetooth headset a few months ago for about $80. I never could get used to it. The mic picked up a lot of background noise, the sound was poor, and I could not get used to it hanging on my ear. I use a Plantronics wired headset now (about $35 from Radio Shack). It's not as convenient, with a wire and all, but the sound and mic quality are great. -Greg
Copy and paste from Word to WordPad, then to Dreamweaver.
What they don't tell you is the first thing the monkey did was raise it's robotic middle finger.
-sb