If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local... [] Finding a file on XP is not particularly difficult--there is an updated search available that works really well. On the other hand, Windows 7 search is an abomination. To use it effectively you have to memorize the command syntax--by trying to be "helpful" it hinders you at every turn. And then it often doesn't find what you're looking for. I've never needed to use it, J, so I'll take your word for that. And the problem with Windows 7 is organizing everything into "libraries". This could be useful if something could be in multiple libraries, but as it stands it's just substituting a heierarchical strucuture that doesn't relate to the physical hardware for one that does relate to the physical hardware, to no real purpose that I can see other than possibly some pipedream about everything being in "the cloud". "Libraries" is a feature I don't use, although others say it's useful. I stick with disks and directories /outside/ the "Users" tree. http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/windows...you-want-them/ Cheers, David |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
On 25/10/2011 11:06, J. Clarke wrote:
In , lid says... On 25/10/2011 09:45, David J Taylor wrote: "David wrote in message ... [] 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). Vista is now quite workable. Manufacturers now have device drivers, and Vista has two service packs. WIndows-7 is a refinement on Vista, and I prefer the UI on 7 to that on Vista. With Wndows-7 available, Vista is obsolete. Cheers, David Agreed. And IMO Windows 7 should have been a *free* upgrade for Vista users, but that's ignoring commercial reality. Why should it have been free? Because Windows 7 was really just Vista minus the warts plus a few of minor tweaks - more of a Service Pack than a new release. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
On 25/10/2011 15:17, J. Clarke wrote:
In , lid says... On 25/10/2011 11:06, J. Clarke wrote: In , lid says... On 25/10/2011 09:45, David J Taylor wrote: "David wrote in message ... [] 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). Vista is now quite workable. Manufacturers now have device drivers, and Vista has two service packs. WIndows-7 is a refinement on Vista, and I prefer the UI on 7 to that on Vista. With Wndows-7 available, Vista is obsolete. Cheers, David Agreed. And IMO Windows 7 should have been a *free* upgrade for Vista users, but that's ignoring commercial reality. Why should it have been free? Because Windows 7 was really just Vista minus the warts plus a few of minor tweaks - more of a Service Pack than a new release. What "warts" does it remove? Do you have a list or are you just parrotting what somebody has told you? The major change between Vista and Windows 7 for me is that Windows 7 adds a pile of annoyances. My opinion is my opinion, and it is based on extensive experience of XP, Vista and Windows 7 regularly in my role as an IT professional. No further discussion, thanks. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
In article , lid
says... On 25/10/2011 15:17, J. Clarke wrote: In , lid says... On 25/10/2011 11:06, J. Clarke wrote: In , lid says... On 25/10/2011 09:45, David J Taylor wrote: "David wrote in message ... [] 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). Vista is now quite workable. Manufacturers now have device drivers, and Vista has two service packs. WIndows-7 is a refinement on Vista, and I prefer the UI on 7 to that on Vista. With Wndows-7 available, Vista is obsolete. Cheers, David Agreed. And IMO Windows 7 should have been a *free* upgrade for Vista users, but that's ignoring commercial reality. Why should it have been free? Because Windows 7 was really just Vista minus the warts plus a few of minor tweaks - more of a Service Pack than a new release. What "warts" does it remove? Do you have a list or are you just parrotting what somebody has told you? The major change between Vista and Windows 7 for me is that Windows 7 adds a pile of annoyances. My opinion is my opinion, and it is based on extensive experience of XP, Vista and Windows 7 regularly in my role as an IT professional. No further discussion, thanks. In other words you don't know of any such "warts" but we should believe you because you're an "IT professional". |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:05:26 -0500, John Turco
wrote: Pete A wrote: heavily edited for brevity Most people buy **** - always have, always will. They just assume that the latest **** is better than the previous pile of it. I just had a look at the Adobe website for the features of Photoshop Element 10. I had to laugh - it's designed for people who will never learn how to be a photographer in a million years. I assume it does more than depicted, but what I deem to be useful features do not have much web-space allocated to them. It's all about sharing one-touch manipulated images via social networking. Now that is the definition of business acumen. In November of 2010, I made an online purchase of the OEM version of Corel "Paint Shop Pro Photo XI" -- and it cost me a whopping $9.00 USD! I have no no need nor desire for the pricey Photoshop, as PSP is nearly as powerful (while being far easier to use), and has been my main graphics program since 1998. Paintshop Pro XI. Minimum requirements Windows 2000 or XP. No wonder that in 2010 you paid $9 for an OEM version! Have you tried getting support? Regards, Eric Stevens |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
Pete A wrote:
The 386 and later CPUs have 4 privilege rings, but most OS designers use only ring 0 (kernel) and ring 3 (user). This may have been acceptable for NT 4, but is totally unacceptable for the complexity of more recent OSs including modern UNIX and Linux systems. Even OS/2 used 3 of the rings (ring 2 was used for operations such as user-mode I/O). Feel free to write a patch for Linux. While doing that remember that there are many other CPU vendors and types outside the 386 anchestry, so please keep your code as generic as possible. As a practical example, Sony BMG published CDs with copy protection and DRM, which installed a rootkit onto the machine without the user being aware of it (a rootkit hijacks part of the OS kernel and is extremely difficult to detect). If the OS had been designed properly with driver code running at ring 1 instead of 0, this would have been impossible, as would much other malware. Are you absolutely sure? Are you really sure that drivers wouldn't be able to contain the functions of a rootkit as wanted by Sony? Are you really sure that you'll allow a ring 1 driver to write to the same partition the boot code lies on, and if not, how do you think a ring 0 driver wouldn't be a driver? The only thing that should be allowed to change kernel code is a vendor supplied patch or update. This is too stupid for words. You probably suffer from "Patches fall from the sky and are all distributed by Microsoft --- and there are no operating systems outside Windows, anyway" syndrome. User installed software should never be able to modify kernel code, not even if the user is a member of the system administrator group of users. So do a chown root: $kernel_code chmod go-w $kernel_code chmod go-w dirs($kernel_code) and only the root user (note: user, not group!) can change the kernel code. Easy as apple pie and doesn't even need ACLs. Oh, users cannot install software to anywhere but public directories or their own home directory, anyway. The third biggest problem with modern OSs is the user experience. Many users get so frustrated when logged in correctly as a non-privileged user that they use the machine logged into an admin account. There is simply no excuse for this incredibly poor user experience in MS, UNIX, and Linux. Do you have any recent user experience with Unix or Linux? Probably not. Unless you are doing sysadminy things (i.e. not behaving as a user), you don't need privileges. Until the OS designers use all 4 privilege levels provided by the CPU and MS creates a robust shell _for_ Explorer and the user apps to all share, we are stuck with increasingly slow, unstable and insecure systems. Hey, are you sure you don't need 5 rings? Or 6? Or 4096? Just because intel-86 doesn't support any more rings doesn't mean we don't need them --- and just because intel-86 offers them doesn't mean we need them. And tell me ... increasingly slow? I haven't noticed in the last 20 years. Unstable? Sorry, faults in user software (ring 3) and faults in the hardware (independent of rings) isn't helped by 4 rings. As far as I can see, the linux kernel is rather stable and isn't getting worse. Insecure? Sure, with the number of code lines growing fast in applications and the number of applications that interact with the intenet in some way--- but 4 privilege levels won't help a bit against compromised SSL host keys, adobe flash bugs, BEAST attacks against SSL, XSS holes, etc. etc. etc. In other words: I think you're quite completely wrong and see only a very small part of reality. And my final observation is that while OSs continue to be written in C and applications written in C++, we are doomed. This is insanity: at the very least, core OS modules and all code that parses user input should be written in Pascal. Pascal has inherent run-time range and boundary checking and works in harmony with the x86 series (almost zero overhead) instruction to implement these checks - buffer overflow (aka buffer overrun) injection attacks would be impossible yet they are still causing vulnerabilities in modern software. C was, and still is, a jack of all trades and master of none. Pascal doesn't even allow you to copy a 19 character 'string' (actually a packed array of char) variable into a 20 character 'string' variable. (Look it up!) Any 'Pascal' that allows that is using some extension. And remember, everyone would be much safer if everyone wore a straightjacket. Much more important than some runtime checks is the errors per functional unit for the relevant code type. I read that the nuclear power station up the coast from me has two and a half million lines of C code controlling it - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are probably quite a few bugs in that amount of C code Sure, and the same ones would be in Pascal. Up to the "range check failed, code aborted, not inserting the control rods ..." -Wolfgang |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
On 2011-10-28 00:17:30 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg said:
Pete A wrote: [...] The only thing that should be allowed to change kernel code is a vendor supplied patch or update. This is too stupid for words. You probably suffer from "Patches fall from the sky and are all distributed by Microsoft --- and there are no operating systems outside Windows, anyway" syndrome. Yeah. What's your excuse for writing total ******** in your reply? |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
Pete A wrote:
On 2011-10-16 02:24:17 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge said: broader customer empowerment and cost issues. Perhaps both management and customer education is helpful? Only to those who sincerely want to learn something. I have a funny feeling the number is way below 10%. I don't think the modern customer wants to be empowered; I think they prefer moaning about the state of everything. Empower them and they will have nothing to moan about. Being responsible and accountable for one's knowledge and actions has become a dirty phrase, normally spoken only by "the enemy of the people." Hmmm, and how does *that* match to the health reform in the US, which AFAIK didn't happen? As in "We don't want basic health insurance for everyone, we want to be empowered to have *no* health insurance at all"? (Which from my POV is more than utterly stupid. I cannot comprehend a society that actually *wants* gaping holes that it then tries to close with voluntary actions of charity. Not only is that self-serving and self-aggrandizing (first hurt them, then heal them a bit for making oneself look better), it's also inherently unfair (charity isn't very equally distributed, so some will get lots and others naught) and puts the recipient into an uncomfortable position of dependency (can't speak out against X or loose the charity) and make him half a beggar (is having power (whether you misuse or use it or not) over other people one put into that position christian? Or is that the slave holder gene?) But then I live in a country where the workers parties demanded such things (back when they were only third class voters!) and got a very weak response in 1883 (that's eighteen-hundred-eighty-three) in form of a law that introduced health insurance for (nearly) everyone. As I cannot comprehend them I cannot tell them what to do, they will have to find their own way.) -Wolfgang |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Possible new feature for next Photoshop
Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
The MS firewall is completely functional but most of its capabilities aren't exposed via a GUI, including outbound protection. MS deemed two way firewall protection "wasn't necessary". The MS 'firewall' is a desktop machine packet filter, not a firewall. (A firewall is a security concept, which usually includes filters (e.g. packet filters, deep inspection, blocked ports), but also e.g. rules of behaviour (e.g. "do not download from dubious web sites", "run AV software and update it", "no external USB sticks on the premises" and so on.) The functionality of a desktop 'firewall' can be described on topic: http://www.e-2005.de/potw/unischranke.jpg I've written on two way permission based circles of protection before (which can reach down to the bit level and scale across the whole internet) and this gets pretty boring after a while. So where's the paper, and where is the proof of concept code for your idea? And why has noone implemented that yet? It seems something like that would be needed in a lot of places ... The rolling out of smart meters in the UK was halted not because of cost or user reasons but the fact the government **** itself silly that a teenage hacker in a basement flat in Nairobi could switch off the UK. And you know that because mothman told you so, or do you have some more reliable source? -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nifty new feature in DPP | Robert Coe | Digital SLR Cameras | 28 | March 6th 10 06:37 PM |
Zoomify feature in CS3 | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | January 1st 07 02:58 PM |
Photoshop Plugins Collection, updated 25/Jan/2006, ADOBE CREATIVE SUITE V2, PHOTOSHOP CS V2, PHOTOSHOP CS V8.0, 2nd edition | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 2nd 06 06:54 AM |
Best CS Feature You've Never Heard About | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | December 15th 05 08:52 PM |
Best Photoshop Feature You've Never Heard Of? | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 2 | December 12th 05 04:50 PM |