I've attempted to switch to Linux (or at least learn to use) several times. I've tried Slackware and then Mandrake (now Mandriva).
In all cases, I have attempted to ask questions in forums and met with unfriendly people unwilling to help beyond telling me to RTFM.
A couple of years ago my interest was sparked after reading about OS X. I had never owned a Mac and had not used one since lower school many years ago. So I started hanging out in some Mac specific forums. I found the people there to be incredibly friendly and willing to help others with problems. There is no such thing as a dumb question in most Mac forums. They are also the first ones to admit faults with Apple hardware and software. Anyway, it was a good impression and I am now the happy owner of a MacBook Pro.
Actually, the GUI isn't completely overhauled. The way the graphics are drawn (the layer under the GUI) is completely overhauled but the INTERFACE is just changed. Take the control panel for instance. It's basically the same. Even many of the icons are the same. Looking in many places and you will see many remnants of the past.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Apple going to (according to rumors) bypass the need to install Windows by allowing programs written for Windows to run natively? That would mean there is no need to activate or even purchase Windows. If that is not in fact the goal then what's the point? QEMU already does pretty well at allowing a virtual version of Windows in OS X and it's free.
Yes, it's a complete redesign from the ground up. That's why the same crummy registry concept is there, why the control panel looks exactly the same with many of the same icons, why dll hell still exists to some degree, why programs are still installed in the same way, why the explorer process requires 100MB vs 20MB in XP.
The way apps are installed and managed in OS X is so obviously superior that MS would be stupid not to copy it during a complete redesign.
Should I go on? A complete redesign, I HOPE, would involve streamlining code/operation and killing some of it's demons. Vista does neither.
What MS have done is rewritten some of the modules and added a lot of new modules, which is why Vista has 15 million lines of code (or so) more than XP. It's a much more complex OS...and not in a good way.
Actually, string theory makes predictions about the behavior of matter which are falsifiable. Perhaps not with today's technology but once we have some more powerful colliders some of the the predictions made by string theory can possibly be tested.
Why is any other single source to be considered more neutral than Wikipedia? Does going to journalism school truly make one neutral?
I don't get why some people think that the only trustable or neutral source is a professional journalist working for a large corporation. I'm not a professional chef but I can grill a damn good tasting steak.
Why is it not very useful on the web? Scan in the photo and resize for web display and compress to jpeg. What's the issue other than the time to scan in? I think most developers these days can do the scanning for you and burn to CD.
"It is, however, rather troublesome with 100MB TIFF per frame, and not very useful on the web."
I wish I had mod points. The question is prominent in the discussion thread list but the answer is buried. The answer is even correct. I have this edition of Discover and read this article with interest the other day. The clock will not contain any precious metals or jewels so there is a reduced chance of it being dismantled in rough times. It will "reward attention" as the author put it by only displaying certain information when someone comes close to it, stepping on a pressure sensitive plate. I imagine there will be a spiral walkway working it's way up to the top going from the slowest moving parts to the fastest moving parts. I wonder if this will be freely open to the public?
"I think both the Gimp and Photoshop are poor photo editing applications for professional users because they have too many extraneous features and don't focus on addressing the essentials well."
Yes, and the world is flat.
Let's take a look at a small sample of what Adobe has been doing with Photoshop lately that appeals to professional photographers.
1. Great improvements have been made to the image browser, known as Bridge. Also, many improvements have been made to The Adobe RAW Conversion plugin (known as ACR) . The improvements in these two pieces of the program put it on par with the powerful but buggy Phase One, Capture One What Adobe does that C1 does not is that it integrates flawlessly with Photoshop and it eliminates the puchase of a $500+ piece of software. I've used both and I think Adobe's converter is better, provided a custom calibration is performed with the camera to adjust ACR's color output.
2. Sharpening. Smart sharpen has been added. It does not replace Unsharp Mask (USM), rather is supplements it. It uses complex math to perform something called deconvolution. It can correct small levels of incorrect focus and motion blur. It can also be used as a general sharpening tool. Some photographers will still prefer USM but I like using Smart Sharpen. Previously, one had to buy relatively expensive plugins to do this. The thing is, smart sharpen is better than the best deconvolution plugin available. It allows the operation to be included in actions (similar to macros). It's faster, it can be performed with fractional radii, and it can be turned down in shadows and highlights to avoid needless amplification of noise. One of the few popular deconvolution plugins available, Focus Magic does not have these features. Normally when big companies borrow features only available as add-ons, they are lacking in many areas. Not so in Adobe's case.
These are just a couple of examples of recent Photoshop improvements. There are also lens correction filters, perspective based cloning tools, spot healing tool, and many other features that are NOT considered bloat by many photographers.
Slashdot Mirror
I've attempted to switch to Linux (or at least learn to use) several times. I've tried Slackware and then Mandrake (now Mandriva). In all cases, I have attempted to ask questions in forums and met with unfriendly people unwilling to help beyond telling me to RTFM. A couple of years ago my interest was sparked after reading about OS X. I had never owned a Mac and had not used one since lower school many years ago. So I started hanging out in some Mac specific forums. I found the people there to be incredibly friendly and willing to help others with problems. There is no such thing as a dumb question in most Mac forums. They are also the first ones to admit faults with Apple hardware and software. Anyway, it was a good impression and I am now the happy owner of a MacBook Pro.
Actually, the GUI isn't completely overhauled. The way the graphics are drawn (the layer under the GUI) is completely overhauled but the INTERFACE is just changed. Take the control panel for instance. It's basically the same. Even many of the icons are the same. Looking in many places and you will see many remnants of the past.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Apple going to (according to rumors) bypass the need to install Windows by allowing programs written for Windows to run natively? That would mean there is no need to activate or even purchase Windows. If that is not in fact the goal then what's the point? QEMU already does pretty well at allowing a virtual version of Windows in OS X and it's free.
Utter rubbish. I'd say it's closer to Apple taking OS X from 10.2 to 10.4 in terms of number of changes and features added.
I know realize that I posted a very serious reply to a joke. I'm going back to sleep now...
Yes, it's a complete redesign from the ground up. That's why the same crummy registry concept is there, why the control panel looks exactly the same with many of the same icons, why dll hell still exists to some degree, why programs are still installed in the same way, why the explorer process requires 100MB vs 20MB in XP. The way apps are installed and managed in OS X is so obviously superior that MS would be stupid not to copy it during a complete redesign. Should I go on? A complete redesign, I HOPE, would involve streamlining code/operation and killing some of it's demons. Vista does neither. What MS have done is rewritten some of the modules and added a lot of new modules, which is why Vista has 15 million lines of code (or so) more than XP. It's a much more complex OS...and not in a good way.
"Macro-evolution is NOT micro-evolution on a larger scale" Uhh, yes it is. It is YOU who does not understand evolution.
Actually, string theory makes predictions about the behavior of matter which are falsifiable. Perhaps not with today's technology but once we have some more powerful colliders some of the the predictions made by string theory can possibly be tested.
Why is any other single source to be considered more neutral than Wikipedia? Does going to journalism school truly make one neutral? I don't get why some people think that the only trustable or neutral source is a professional journalist working for a large corporation. I'm not a professional chef but I can grill a damn good tasting steak.
Why is it not very useful on the web? Scan in the photo and resize for web display and compress to jpeg. What's the issue other than the time to scan in? I think most developers these days can do the scanning for you and burn to CD. "It is, however, rather troublesome with 100MB TIFF per frame, and not very useful on the web."
I wish I had mod points. The question is prominent in the discussion thread list but the answer is buried. The answer is even correct. I have this edition of Discover and read this article with interest the other day. The clock will not contain any precious metals or jewels so there is a reduced chance of it being dismantled in rough times. It will "reward attention" as the author put it by only displaying certain information when someone comes close to it, stepping on a pressure sensitive plate. I imagine there will be a spiral walkway working it's way up to the top going from the slowest moving parts to the fastest moving parts. I wonder if this will be freely open to the public?
Yes, and the world is flat.
Let's take a look at a small sample of what Adobe has been doing with Photoshop lately that appeals to professional photographers.
1. Great improvements have been made to the image browser, known as Bridge. Also, many improvements have been made to The Adobe RAW Conversion plugin (known as ACR) . The improvements in these two pieces of the program put it on par with the powerful but buggy Phase One, Capture One What Adobe does that C1 does not is that it integrates flawlessly with Photoshop and it eliminates the puchase of a $500+ piece of software. I've used both and I think Adobe's converter is better, provided a custom calibration is performed with the camera to adjust ACR's color output.
2. Sharpening. Smart sharpen has been added. It does not replace Unsharp Mask (USM), rather is supplements it. It uses complex math to perform something called deconvolution. It can correct small levels of incorrect focus and motion blur. It can also be used as a general sharpening tool. Some photographers will still prefer USM but I like using Smart Sharpen. Previously, one had to buy relatively expensive plugins to do this. The thing is, smart sharpen is better than the best deconvolution plugin available. It allows the operation to be included in actions (similar to macros). It's faster, it can be performed with fractional radii, and it can be turned down in shadows and highlights to avoid needless amplification of noise. One of the few popular deconvolution plugins available, Focus Magic does not have these features. Normally when big companies borrow features only available as add-ons, they are lacking in many areas. Not so in Adobe's case.
These are just a couple of examples of recent Photoshop improvements. There are also lens correction filters, perspective based cloning tools, spot healing tool, and many other features that are NOT considered bloat by many photographers.