 |
|
 |
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:09:17 -0400, "Jimmyjohn" <...@verizon.com
Why must the truth elicit such hysteria?
"Rotten Apple" <...@news.albasani.net...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:35:04 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
I doubt that would change if the "C - level folks" used PCs instead.
Those folks get the best support. No revelation there.
If they used Linux they wouldn't have to replace anything! :)
This presumes that everybody who uses a Mac needs to run Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:23:28 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:35:04 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Well, now we know the worth of the Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Jon
Oltsik's opinions because that statement is about as wrong as can be. Nobody
has to "upgrade all the applications and often the hardware to meet the new
memory requirements." That's just bullshit. I've never had to upgrade ONE
application when upgrading OSX to the next release. Even going from PPC to
Intel based Macs doesn't require that as Rosetta will run all PPC Mac apps
just fine, thank you, and without any really noticeable overhead. Even with
Snow Leopard, the number of intel native apps that need to be upgraded to run
properly is miniscule, and perhaps even fewer apps broke than with the
upgrade of Windows users from XP to Vista. This guy hasn't any idea about
what he's saying. Not a clue.
At A&E, for example, creativity on the Mac is the lifeblood
This article you're quoting has NO credibility with anyone who knows either
Macs or adobe products. If one cannot mix CS3 and CS4 files on a Mac, then
you can't do it on the Windows versions of these apps either. Attributing
this characteristc to only the Mac versions of the Adobe Suites is a
deliberate distortion of the truth by some hack who obviously has an axe of
some kind to grind. MOST application's file formats are not backwards
compatible on EITHER platform. IOW, you can't open a file saved in CS4 with
CS3 version the same application. Just as you can't open the latest Word file
format in Office 2000 either and for the same reason. This is generally true
unless the application developer gives the user the option to save in an
older format, or provides a filter for older versions of the app which allows
them to open the newer file formats (such as Microsoft provides for older
versions of Office).
Nice try, but you really should check the facts in an article like this
before you post it. Just because it's published on the internet doesn't mean
that it's correct or that the author or publisher doesn't have some agenda
that causes them to play fast and loose with the facts as seems to be the
case here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:30:12 -0700, Snit <...@gallopinginsanity.com
Fa-groon stated in post 0001...@news.giganews.com on
9/12/09 8:23 AM:
I know there are a number of programs that I had to upgrade... and some I am
still waiting for.
SoundStudio is quirky: http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/SoundStudio.mov
DreamCather is not yet updated
PDF Lap is not yet updated (though I can do what I need in Automator)
iStatMenus is now updated, but needed the update to get it to work
Cyberduck had to be updated
DockStar has to be updated - and broke again with 10.6.1
BusySync had to be updated
YemuZip had to be updated (I believe... would have to double check)
There might be more. Than again, I use a *lot* of programs... that is still
only a small percentage. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Steve de Mena <...@gmail.com
On Sep 12, 8:23 am, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
LOL. I guess you must just run iLife on your machine.
With Snow Leopard I had to upgrade:
1Password
SuperDuper!
M-Audiio drivers - NOPE, no Snow Leopard version available yet. Not
compatible.
SIlicon Image Sil3132 eSATA drivers - NOPE, no Snow Leopard version
available yet. Not compatible.
Little Snitch
Probably others I don't even remember...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:39:07 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
We know that upgrading to Snow Leopard requires PPC owners to replace
their machines with new Intel Macs, and upgrade all their applications
as well. IIRC, even PPC Macs needed upgrades along the way to
accommodate OSX, the G3 debacle comes to mind. I don't think the
author is as wrong or clueless as you'd like to believe.
Actually RA quoted the article, I just responded to the quotes.
You're forgetting that the Windows version of CS4 doesn't come with the
requirement of changing the OS and the machine you run it on.
The difference being that CS3 and CS4 both run on either XP or Vista,
while CS4 requires Snow Leopard. It's not like PPC owners, some of
which had very expensive machines, needing to upgrade to run CS4. CS4
will run on the same Windows machine that ran CS3, AFAIK.
What do you imagine I was trying?
Rotten Apple posted the article. Your rage seems to have confused you.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious.
Seems more like your agenda is showing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:57:55 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:39:07 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Irrelevant. We're not talking about changing computers, just upgrading the
OS. If you wanted to upgrade from Windows to Mac OSX, for instance, you'd
have to buy new hardware too. But that's apples and oranges as well and also
irelevant
and upgrade all their applications as well.
Not true. Their PPC apps will run just fine under Snow Leopard.
You do not RC.
the G3 debacle comes to mind.
What G3 debacle? Apple stopped supporting it, just as they stopped supporting
the 604 before it and 68K processors before that. What of it?
Yes he is. He's purposely wrong because he is attributing problems to
upgrading the Mac to them alone while ignoring similar upgrade issues with
other platforms - like Windows, for instance. Try upgrading an 800 MHz
Pentium II to Vista and see what happens
Your forgetting that this is NOT AN ISSUE because of Rosetta.
Wrong again. CS4 is a Dual Binary application and will run on either PPC or
intel Macs under either Tiger, Leopard, or Snow Leopard.
http://tinyurl.com/l6ky8v
And if one moves from a PPC to an Intel computer after purchasing CS4, one
can EITHER continue to run the PPC version that's already installed under
Rosetta, or go back and re-install the app, this time using the Intel version
of the Dual Binary.
It's not like PPC owners, some of
To find some credible anti-Mac article to continue to justify you Mac-hating
stance here. If I have my attributions wrong, then the above is aimed at the
OP, not you. But you did seem to support the assertions of this article and
you seem to have little clue about what YOU are asserting when it comes to
what will run on what.
What makes you think that I'm in a rage. I'm merely countering some FUD with
facts. Sorry if I mis-attributed the posting to you. Not sorry, however about
correcting some of YOUR misconceptions.
It's obviously NOT obvious to some people.
My agenda is countering FUD with facts. Nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:40:05 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
<snip
Neither does the Mac version of CS4.
Wrong as usual, Edwin.
CS4 doesn't require Snow Leopard.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:09:19 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Adobe says it does.
Yes, you're wrong as usual, Brian.
Adobe says it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:13:23 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
No, alas for you, they do not.
Edwin, Edwin, Edwin. Will you never learn to check your facts before you
write?
I admit I have a leg up on this one as I need to advise my clients on
such matters, but you could simply have checked:
<http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/systemreqs/?promoid=DRHXE
"Mac OS
? PowerPC(R) G5 or multicore Intel(R) processor
? Mac OS X v10.4.11-10.5.4"
Not only does CS4 not require Snow Leopard, it will happily run under
Tiger.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:12:32 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Alas for me? Who give a shit one way or another?
Who is this Edwin? He seems to have really left you thirsting for
revenge. I can only guess he must have thoroughly humiliated you.
As for myself, I had checked my facts before I posted, even though I
became confused during the course of arguments here. So what? It's
not like I give a shit about Apple, Macs, CS3/4, or you!
Yawn. BFD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:40:20 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
You did, Edwin...
...until you were beaten over the head enough that you finally realize
you were wrong.
Then all-of-a-sudden it's, "Who give a shit..."
LOL
LOL
You checked your facts and then *became* confused, Edwin?
LOL
It was until you finally realized what an ass you were making of
yourself...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:56:45 -0400, Tim Murray <...@thankyou.com
Checking facts is usually what does you in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:04:36 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Considering that CS4 came out well before Snow Leopard, you have to be
wrong.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:21:17 -0700, Steve Hix <...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID
No, they don't.
Adobe is saying no more than that they won't be supporting anything
*before* CS4 on SL.
It's a very different thing to what you claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:27:21 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@news.speakeasy.net Steve Hix <...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID
That's alright, Steve.
In typical Edwin fashion, he's moved from making one claim without
having anything to base it on (that CS4 requires SL), to a new claim
made without anything to base it on (that CS4 only works on Intel Macs).
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:25:50 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Okay, I guess I got confused. My mistake.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE<PREIn article <<A HREF...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain" Sermo Malifer <<A HREF...@gmail.com"
> > In article <<A HREF...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain"> > Sermo Malifer <<A HREF...@gmail.com"> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > >> At A&E, for example, creativity on the Mac is the lifeblood
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> the business. This means creative people can indeed make a
> > > > >> compelling
> > > > >> case
> > > > >> for a Mac. When Adobe came out with Creative Suite 4, says Graff,
> > > > >> "we
> > > > >> found
> > > > >> that it didn't run on some of the Macs. You also can't mix CS3 and
> > > > >> CS4
> > > > >> files-it doesn't work too well."
> > > > >
> > > > > This presumes that everybody who uses a Mac needs to run Photoshop.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This article you're quoting has NO credibility with anyone who knows
> > > > either
> > > > Macs or adobe products.
> > >
> > > Actually RA quoted the article, I just responded to the quotes.
> > >
> > > > If one cannot mix CS3 and CS4 files on a Mac, then
> > > > you can't do it on the Windows versions of these apps either.
> > > > Attributing
> > > > this characteristc to only the Mac versions of the Adobe Suites is a
> > > > deliberate distortion of the truth by some hack who obviously has an
> > > > axe of
> > > > some kind to grind.
> > >
> > > You're forgetting that the Windows version of CS4 doesn't come with the
> > > requirement of changing the OS and the machine you run it on.
> >
> > Neither does the Mac version of CS4.
>
> Adobe says it does.
>
> > >
> > > > MOST application's file formats are not backwards
> > > > compatible on EITHER platform. IOW, you can't open a file saved in CS4
> > > > with
> > > > CS3 version the same application. Just as you can't open the latest
> > > > Word
> > > > file
> > > > format in Office 2000 either and for the same reason. This is generally
> > > > true
> > > > unless the application developer gives the user the option to save in
> > > > an
> > > > older format, or provides a filter for older versions of the app which
> > > > allows
> > > > them to open the newer file formats (such as Microsoft provides for
> > > > older
> > > > versions of Office).
> > >
> > > The difference being that CS3 and CS4 both run on either XP or Vista,
> > > while CS4 requires Snow Leopard. It's not like PPC owners, some of
> > > which had very expensive machines, needing to upgrade to run CS4. CS4
> > > will run on the same Windows machine that ran CS3, AFAIK.
> >
> > Wrong as usual, Edwin.
>
> Yes, you're wrong as usual, Brian.
>
> > CS4 doesn't require Snow Leopard.
>
> Adobe says it does.
Considering that CS4 came out well before Snow Leopard, you have to be
wrong.
</PRE</BLOCKQUOTE<PRE
</PREOkay, I guess I got confused. My mistake.
</BODY</HTML
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:37:32 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
And yet, just like Edwin, you insisted for a whole bunch of posts that
you been "told by Adobe"...
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:54:02 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:09:19 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
No, they DON'T.
http://tinyurl.com/l6ky8v
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:36:05 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
If you want the "Master Collection", or the "Production Premium"
versions, you mean.
IOW, if you want the AfterEffects or Premiere Pro.
For all the folks using CS4 for print and web work, this is a non-issue.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:13:02 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:11:58 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Nope, Only the Master Suite does. The other versions of CS4 do not.
http://tinyurl.com/l6ky8v
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:31:49 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:54:47 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:31:49 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Again, one of the problems with Usenet is that once you post, you can't take
back what you posted. I wrote this before I got to your apology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:29:45 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
While it is true you need an Intel Mac to run SL, I have no issues
running Leopard on my iMac G5. As stated in another post, there is only
one app I have had to upgrade to get it to run on either Leopard (from
Tiger) or SL, from Leopard, Prosoft Engineering's Netware client, which
is something of a dog's breakfast anyway, since it relies on all sorts
of kernal extensions.
[snip]
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:05:51 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
That's all well and good for you, but you're ignoring the needs of all
those who have to upgrade to Snow Leopard.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE<PREIn article <<A HREF...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain" Sermo Malifer <<A HREF...@gmail.com"
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:35:04 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
> > (in article <<A HREF...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain"> >
> > >> <A HREF="http://napps.networkworld.com/news/2009/033109-macs-in-the-enterprise-the"> > >> .ht
> > >> ml?page=1
> > >>
> > >> Macs in the Enterprise: the Cost Factor
> > >>
> > >> By Tom Kaneshige , CIO , 03/31/2009
> > >>
> > >> At A&E Television Networks, employees have to make a compelling case to
> > >> get
> > >> a Mac. More often than not, they're denied. That's because the high cost
> > >> of
> > >> a Mac is downright hard to justify, especially in these tough times.
> > >>
> > >> "You can buy a PC for $400, while the cheapest Mac is over a thousand,"
> > >> says
> > >> Jon Graff, director of IT operations at A&E. "In the real world, you're
> > >> spending a lot more on a Mac. People really need to show why they can't
> > >> get
> > >> their work done on a PC."
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> Nevertheless, Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Jon Oltsik says Mac
> > >> support
> > >> can be daunting. Companies with mixed Windows-Mac environments tell him
> > >> that
> > >> their Mac population is only around 5 percent. "Of that 5 percent, a
> > >> large
> > >> portion are C-level folks, like CEOs and CFOs," Oltsik says. "Because of
> > >> the
> > >> expectations of executives, the PC support people say that providing Mac
> > >> support occupies about 20 percent of their time."
> > >
> > > I doubt that would change if the "C - level folks" used PCs instead.
> > > Those folks get the best support. No revelation there.
> > >
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> Hidden costs creep into the Mac-PC debate
> > >>
> > >> The real cost of Macs gets tricky when upgrades get factored into the
> > >> equation. A&E's Graff has had to put off hardware purchases and software
> > >> upgrades last year and this year due to budget cuts. Graff supports
> > >> around
> > >> 1,000 PCs and 100 Macs, and in happier times would replace a third of
> > >> his
> > >> computers annually. Suspending a refresh is difficult-and even more so
> > >> with
> > >> Macs.
> > >
> > > If they used Linux they wouldn't have to replace anything! :)
> > >
> > >> When Apple comes out with an upgrade to OS X, says Graff, you have to
> > >> upgrade all the applications and often the hardware to meet the new
> > >> memory
> > >> requirements.
> >
> > Well, now we know the worth of the Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Jon
> > Oltsik's opinions because that statement is about as wrong as can be.
> > Nobody
> > has to "upgrade all the applications and often the hardware to meet the new
> > memory requirements." That's just bullshit. I've never had to upgrade ONE
> > application when upgrading OSX to the next release. Even going from PPC to
> > Intel based Macs doesn't require that as Rosetta will run all PPC Mac apps
> > just fine, thank you, and without any really noticeable overhead. Even with
> > Snow Leopard, the number of intel native apps that need to be upgraded to
> > run
> > properly is miniscule, and perhaps even fewer apps broke than with the
> > upgrade of Windows users from XP to Vista. This guy hasn't any idea about
> > what he's saying. Not a clue.
>
> We know that upgrading to Snow Leopard requires PPC owners to replace
> their machines with new Intel Macs, and upgrade all their applications
> as well. IIRC, even PPC Macs needed upgrades along the way to
> accommodate OSX, the G3 debacle comes to mind. I don't think the
> author is as wrong or clueless as you'd like to believe.
While it is true you need an Intel Mac to run SL, I have no issues
running Leopard on my iMac G5. As stated in another post, there is only
one app I have had to upgrade to get it to run on either Leopard (from
Tiger) or SL, from Leopard, Prosoft Engineering's Netware client, which
is something of a dog's breakfast anyway, since it relies on all sorts
of kernal extensions.
[snip]
</PRE</BLOCKQUOTE<PRE
</PREThat's all well and good for you, but you're ignoring the needs of all those who have to upgrade to Snow Leopard.
</BODY</HTML
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:07:51 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Who are these people?
What criteria defined this "need", Edwin?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:07:00 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Read my other post. I have 2 Macs that have been upgraded to Snow
Leopard. Both have Canvas X, Photoshoop CS(!), and MS Office 2004. I
haven't had to upgrade any of the applications, and all work fine under
SL.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:52:48 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:05:51 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Nobody "has" to upgrade to Snow Leopard any more than anyone has to upgrade
to Vista from XP (in fact most corporations never did).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:14:08 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Snow Leopard is to Leopard as Vista is to XP? SL is that crappy?
I'll take your word for it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:27:57 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Nice bit of dishonesty there, Edwin.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:45:35 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Where's the dishonesty? What's this weird thing of calling somebody
"Edwin" in lieu of a counter-argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:53:52 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
You used a strawman argument. That is what was dishonest. And, you
certainly sound like Edwin.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Where?
I haven't been dishonest.
You literally hear something that sounds like "Edwin?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:11:47 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:59:25 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
"Snow Leopard is to Leopard as Vista is to XP?"
Nobody said that or even intimated it. The point was that No circumstances
existed that forced people to migrate from XP to Vista. Millions are still
using Vista and find it perfectly adequate to their needs. LIKEWISE, there
are no circumstances that are forcing anyone to migrate from the Intel
install of Leopard, to Snow Leopard. Where in that comparison of there being
no compelling NEED (as opposed to "want") to upgrade either did I say or even
intimate that Snow Leopard is to Leopard as Vista is to XP? The straw man
argument is that you have attached a meaning to my words that is clearly not
there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:38:50 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
How about all the security problems Vista was supposed to fix? Or the
ease of use improvements?
It's more like Vista has too many problems that keep people from
upgrading to it.
Other than the need for the improvements SL is supposed to give? Or is
that just hype?
I gave my take on what you said. That's not the definition of a straw
man, and it doesn't make me dishonest either.
<snip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:52:26 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:38:50 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Since we're not actually comparing the two OSes, merely showing the lack of
an absolute necessity to upgrade to either, the improvements of one over the
other are irrelevant to the point. Heck, Snow Leopard is supposed to be
faster than Leopard, and while that might be a reason to WANT to upgrade, it
does not constitute a NEED to upgrade. Same with the supposed security
upgrades of Vista over XP.
Here is a real NEED to upgrade: I just bought a new scanner. Unfortunately,
the driver and capture software will only run on Vista. XP is not supported.
Therefore I NEED to upgrade to Vista.
Did I say Vista? I misspoke; I meant XP. Millions still use XP and find it
perfectly adequate to their needs.
But that's a want, not a need. Many Mac users will stick with Leopard on
their Intel machines.
I'll take your word that you misunderstood me, even though I don't see how.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:04:30 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:27:57 -0700, David Fritzinger wrote
(in article <...@feeder.eternal-september.org
This guy really is dishonest. Did this "Edwin" guy post like this? Moving
goal posts, refusing to admit when he is wrong, purposely misquoting people,
etc? If so, he must have been some piece of work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:17:38 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Moving goalposts? I have no goals to make here. I've admitted to
being wrong about things I've said here. Purposely misquoting? Where
and when? What have I been dishonest about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:45:33 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Yes, you moved the goal posts.
You've admitted you were wrong only after it became ridiculously
apparent.
As for the rest: LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:54:11 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:17:38 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
Well, one of the problems with Usenet is that once you post, you can't take
back what you posted. I wrote this before I got to your apology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:18:38 -0400, Tim Murray <...@thankyou.com
What's with the attachment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:20:46 -0400, Tim Murray <...@thankyou.com
I think some of use are still waiting to hear who these people are and why
they must upgrade to Snow Leopard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:26:02 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@news.albasani.net "Rotten Apple" <...@pple.com
This guy clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. I have 3 Macs
(counting work and home), an iMac G5 at home, a first generation MacBook
Pro, and an aluminum iMac (24", 2.8 GHz, mid 2007 model) at work. All
have gone from Tiger to Leopard, and the 2 Intel Macs are now on Snow
Leopard. I am running Photoshop CS, and Office 2004 on all 3 Macs, and
both the iMac G5 and the MBP have 1 GIg of memory. All 3 Macs run all
the software on them just fine. The only program I have had an issue
with on any of them is the Prosoft Engineering Netware client. When I
bought the aluminum iMac, I had Tiger on it, even though I bought it in
December, 2007, and I had to wait a couple of months before I upgraded
to Leopard because Prosoft Engineering hadn't upgraded the Netware
client for Leopard. Likewise, I have minor problems with the Netware
client on my aluminum iMac since upgrading to SL.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:24:16 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
You're running CS4 on a G5 Mac? How many applications do you run at
the same time in that 1 GB of RAM?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:11:34 -1000, David Fritzinger <...@nospam.mac.com
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
No, I am running Photoshop *CS* (IOW, v. 8) on the G5, and on the other
2 Macs. The iMac G5 isn't used that heavily, but I generally have at
least 5 or 6 applications open on my work iMac, which has 2 GB RAM, and
it runs them fine. These usually include Word and Excel 2004, Mail,
Safari, Groupwise email client, MacVector, iCal, Addressbook, and
Photoshop CS. Additionally, I will sometimes have MacPyMol, CanvasX,
Adobe ACrobat 8, and Preview open at the same time, all without
problems.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:25:01 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Okay, thanks for the good answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:57:00 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:24:16 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
What the heck are you talking about, boy? My G5 has 4 Gigs of RAM on it. and
yes, I run CS4 on my Mac and all the apps run just fine, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:10:48 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
When you posted as "David Fritzinger" you said your Macs have 1 GB RAM.
As if an endorsement from a fan boy means anything!
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:31:38 -0400, "Jimmyjohn" <...@verizon.com
"Sermo Malifer" <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain...
Ever see his picture? LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:27:27 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:10:48 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
I've never posted as David Fritzinger. I've only posted here under the name
Fa-groon. Fritzinger lives in and posts from Hawaii, I believe. I live in and
post from California.
Whether or not I'm a "fan boy" is beside the point, which is that you are
just wrong. Only the Adobe CS4 Master Suite requires and Intel processor and
that's mostly because of one application. The rest of the apps: Photoshop,
Illustrator, Indesign etc. have Dual-Binary versions and will run very well
on a PPC. That you were able to find an exception doesn't alter the fact that
the most popular applications in CS4 all run perfectly under BOTH the PPC
Macs and the Intel Macs and on all OS versions from Tiger through Snow
Leopard. Frankly, until you brought it up, I've never even HEARD of the CS4
Master Suite, much less know of anybody who uses it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:49:24 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
You answered as if you were David. I asked about the 1 GB on his
machines, and you replied "What the heck are you talking about, boy? My
G5 has 4 Gigs of RAM on it."
Okay, I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:15:00 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:49:24 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
And so it does. What does this have to do with me and David Fritzinger?
There. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Nice of you to admit it, Now we can
move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:31:07 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
I can't explain any better than I already have.
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:31:46 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
How many does he need to run?
Moreover, have you figured out yet that CS4 doesn't required Snow
Leopard?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
That cuts to the chase. "Just fine" means running one app at a time at
a snail's pace! LOL
No, how would I do that beyond what Adobe tells me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:00:52 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:35:06 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
But Adobe doesn't tell you that. It says that CS4 runs on both PPC and Intel
Macs running OS 10.4.11 through 10.5.X. I've posted the URL to Adobe's "CS4
Hardware and OS Requirements Page TWICE already and here it is AGAIN:
http://tinyurl.com/l6ky8v
Go there! Read it! And then come back to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:18:46 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:08:20 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
That's the Master Collection, not the standard version. The standard version
is:
" PowerPC® G5 or multicore Intel® processor
Mac OS X v10.4.1110.5.4
Java Runtime Environment 1.5 required for Adobe® Version Cue® Server
1GB of RAM or more recommended
8.2GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional hard-disk
space required during installation (cannot install on a volume that uses a
case-sensitive file system or on flash-based storage devices)
1,024x768 display (1,280x800 recommended) with 16-bit video card
Some GPU-accelerated features require graphics support for Shader Model
3.0 and OpenGL 2.0
DVD-ROM drive
QuickTime 7.4.5 software required for multimedia features
Broadband Internet connection required for online services*"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:36:44 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
Adobe hasn't told you that. Have the the wit to admit that before I
embarrass you some more.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:00:44 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
They have AFAIK.
LOL
You're just a piss ant, Brian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:02:12 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
And now the backpedaling begins.
"As far as you know", Edwin?
Where did they tell you this? What is the source of this "knowledge"?
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:17:15 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:50:43 +0200, Sandman <...@sandman.net
In article <...@news.shawcable.com Alan Baker <...@telus.net
Wait, is Edwin claiming that Adobe CS4, released in 2008-10-15 - ten
months ago - require Snow Leopard for the Mac, an operating system
released two weeks ago? So Adobe released a CS version for Mac they
were unable to sell for nine and a half months? :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:53:54 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@News.Individual.NET Sandman <...@sandman.net
Jonas! You let him off the hook!
I was fully expecting him to argue this point for at least another
week...
...*then* I was going to show him the proof positive...
...then Edwin would make his usual grudging, whiny admission that he was
wrong...
...then he'd somehow blame *me* for making him wrong...
...until finally, he'd somehow come to believe that he'd never been
wrong in the first place.
And now you've spoiled it... :-(
<http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/design/systemreqs/
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:42:47 +0200, Sandman <...@sandman.net
In article <...@news.shawcable.com Alan Baker <...@telus.net
Ooops...
--
Sandman[.net]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:15:41 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
My mistake. CS4 requires Intel Macs. Both CS4 and Snow Leopard leave
PPC owners -heh- out in the cold!
Nobody named Edwin is posting here, unless his post have some sort of
anti-Linux encryption that keeps me from seeing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:05:24 -0700, Fa-groon <...@mad.com
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:15:41 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
(in article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
You still have it wrong! CS4 does NOT Require Intel Macs, It will run
perfectly under either PPC or Intel Macs - and do so natively on both! And it
works on OSes from Tiger through Snow Leopard.
Is it that you cannot read plain ENGLISH? Are you retarded? I'm just asking
because something is certainly keeping you from getting this correct.
Once again (sigh):
http://tinyurl.com/l6ky8v
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, Snit <...@gallopinginsanity.com
Sermo Malifer stated in post 1252...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
on 9/12/09 3:15 PM:
Photoshop CS4 runs in G5s.
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/ -----
PowerPC® G5 or multicore Intel® processor
-----
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:04:36 -0700, Snit <...@gallopinginsanity.com
Sermo Malifer stated in post 1252...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
on 9/12/09 5:35 PM:
My mistake - I was thinking of Photoshop only. Thanks.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:15:15 -0500, Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
You're welcome. Perhaps I've been too harsh in my judgment of you.
Sorry for associating you with Alan Baker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:00:05 -0700, Alan Baker <...@telus.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
And you still won't check your facts, Edwin...
Sure there is, Edwin. There's you. :-)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:44:41 +0200, Sandman <...@sandman.net
In article <...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain Sermo Malifer <...@gmail.com
So you realized you were wrong about your first claim, so now you're
making another incorrect claim?
--
Sandman[.net]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|