Possible new feature for next Photoshop

In article 2011102307143875799-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom,
says...

On 2011-10-23 03:04:19 +0100, Ray Fischer said:

Pete A wrote:
On 2011-10-14 21:17:04 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge said:

[...]
Microsoft made a huge deal out of dropping 16 bit support in 64 bit OS, and
after reading through the (junior) development team's report explaining why
spotted where they'd made some mistakes. The reality is they just weren't
capable enough to figure out how to do it and the clock was ticking.

Money, money, money.

Exactly. Intel CPUs maintain 16-bit emulation mode available for any
_competent_ OS designer to support. The fact that most hardware vendors
no longer provide a floppy disk drive does not mean the CPU is
incapable of running 16-bit DOS programs. To me, this shows an
incredible feat of backwards compatibility engineering by Intel and the
incredible level of incompetence of some OS vendors.

You should realize that that backwards compatibility comes at a price.
Higher prices and lower performance.

Windows has both.

I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
sacrificing backwards compatibility.

On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:

[...]
I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
sacrificing backwards compatibility.

My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD - ASIC - FPGA -
whatever they are now called).

On 10/23/11 PDT 4:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article2011102307143875799-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom,
says...

You should realize that that backwards compatibility comes at a price.
Higher prices and lower performance.

Windows has both.

I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
sacrificing backwards compatibility.

Windows the operating system, not the chips.

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011102317005245441-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:

[...]
I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
sacrificing backwards compatibility.

My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD - ASIC - FPGA -
whatever they are now called).

I waaant my DSP,
Money for nothing,
And the chicks are free.

Uh, middle-aged nerd alert.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On 2011-10-23 18:39:07 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge said:

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011102317005245441-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:

[...]
I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
sacrificing backwards compatibility.

My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD - ASIC - FPGA -
whatever they are now called).

I waaant my DSP,
Money for nothing,
And the chicks are free.

Uh, middle-aged nerd alert.

When in Dire Straits, just do some photography...

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:38:42 -0400, M-M wrote:

I think I have a good motion blur photo:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/zlinsmoke.jpg

That was good for 1/100 sec. My initial reaction was that it must have
been slower than that.

I was panning trying to keep the airplane in the frame, so the plane was
essentially still while the background was blurred from the camera
movement.


--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 10/23/11 PDT 11:59 AM, Pete A wrote:
On 2011-10-23 18:39:07 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge said:

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011102317005245441-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
On 2011-10-23 12:33:13 +0100, J. Clarke said:

[...]
I'd like to know who is making faster cheaper processors today by
sacrificing backwards compatibility.

My guess would be those who market digital signal processors and
controllers, either the real chips or embedded (PLD - ASIC - FPGA
- whatever they are now called).

I waaant my DSP,
Money for nothing,
And the chicks are free.

Uh, middle-aged nerd alert.

When in Dire Straits, just do some photography...

Look at that mama, she got it stickin' in the camera.

Surprisingly on topic.

Martin Brown writes:

On 19/10/2011 20:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang writes:

wrote:

MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)

5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
need the new features.

I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
out?

XP is an exceptional case -- it's been kept in support much longer than
its predecessors.

No. XP was an unusually good vintage and there are still corporates
running it even today. Vista was almost still-born and no amount of PR
fluff and infinite budget advertising hype could resurrect it.

What do you mean, "no"? You then go on to say that there's strong
demand for it even today, which is also part of what I said.

We are in fact still running XP where I work, and expect to upgrade to
Windows 7 this quarter or next.

At least it shows that even Microsoft can listen to customer pressure,
if there's enough of it.

Only when it is practically the entire corporate world - even then
they tried several times to retire it prematurely with extreme
prejudice.

Yes, the strong consensus helped a lot.

And they inflicted a bug ridden Office 2007 on the world to show that
they really don't care about their customers for good measure.

Is that worse than normal for Office? I wouldn't know.

Win7 looks like it might be another decent vintage. They do happen
occasionally but more by good luck than good judgement.

Hmmm; what are the bad mainstream Windows vintages? 1 and 2, for sure.
ME isn't mainstream, happily. Vista, they say ("they" said it strongly
enough that I avoided it at home, and work avoided it, so I've never
actually seen Vista and can't testify to its quality).

In article , says...

Martin Brown writes:

On 19/10/2011 20:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang writes:

wrote:

MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)

5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
need the new features.

I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
out?

XP is an exceptional case -- it's been kept in support much longer than
its predecessors.

No. XP was an unusually good vintage and there are still corporates
running it even today. Vista was almost still-born and no amount of PR
fluff and infinite budget advertising hype could resurrect it.

What do you mean, "no"? You then go on to say that there's strong
demand for it even today, which is also part of what I said.

We are in fact still running XP where I work, and expect to upgrade to
Windows 7 this quarter or next.

At least it shows that even Microsoft can listen to customer pressure,
if there's enough of it.

Only when it is practically the entire corporate world - even then
they tried several times to retire it prematurely with extreme
prejudice.

Yes, the strong consensus helped a lot.

And they inflicted a bug ridden Office 2007 on the world to show that
they really don't care about their customers for good measure.

Is that worse than normal for Office? I wouldn't know.

Win7 looks like it might be another decent vintage. They do happen
occasionally but more by good luck than good judgement.

Hmmm; what are the bad mainstream Windows vintages? 1 and 2, for sure.
ME isn't mainstream, happily. Vista, they say ("they" said it strongly
enough that I avoided it at home, and work avoided it, so I've never
actually seen Vista and can't testify to its quality).

I've been running Vista since it first appeared and it's given me no
real problems other than that they changed the driver rules so that some
of my older hardware has to work on compatibility drivers and other
hardware doesn't work at all--I had to rig an Ethernet-to-100VG bridge
for example because there's no possibility of support for the 100VG
NICs, and my old inkjet printer runs on a generic driver. But this
isn't any kind of bug and the drivers that are broken by Vista aren't
fixed by Windows 7. But aside from the driver issues and the odd
pathological program that won't run on a 64-bit OS not no way not no how
it's been pretty much problem free.

"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1110242130410.2055@ryan-BigStorm...
Adobe does not "limit compatibility". Camera makers continually change
the RAW file format over and over again, requiring Adobe to task a team of
coders to recode their RAW engine to deal with them. These employees cost
money. Adobe has tried to create a standard RAW format (DNG) to rule them
all to avoid this problem, but the camera makers will have none of it.

The copy of Photoshop you buy will always open the RAW files that it opens
when you buy it. Future cameras with new formats may not be opened by the
older software versions.

All very true, and you can also use the camera makers software to convert
from RAW before opening in PS. However most PS users find using
Bridge/camera-raw or Lightroom to be an easier work flow situation, and
Adobe knows it. The changes to many new camera model RAW formats are
trivial, but Adobe needs some excuse to force you to upgrade, since many of
the new features are not enough to justify the price for most people.

Trevor.