Travel without a camera

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

As best I can recall the Mac users here are Alan Browne, Davoud, David B.,
Sandman, Whisky-Dave, you, and me. That is 7 confirmed, there might be a few
more.

We can't count you since you're a figment of your own imagination! But I
can take place #7...
--
teleportation kills

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 03:37:25 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:50:00 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:03:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:40:07 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 10:13:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---


One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but
adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.

Except that there's not any firm requirement from Adobe to
actually *use* what they specify as hardware 'minimums'.

No, but then the processing falls back to the CPU which can be quite a
bit slower.

True, but only if Adobe actually is using that hardware somehow/somewhere.

Now granted, we do know that *some* filters/etc have been rewritten
by Adobe to leverage GPUs ... but that doesn't mean that *all* of these
rewrites require said performance test/qualification - - in fact, in all
likelihood, there's going to be differences between each one of them
for what they need, and the Software Group Manager is simply going
to say "okay, what's the minimum hardware that satisfies all of these
subroutines?".

Overall, the problem is that Adobe's not currently using the GPU for all
processes. As such, it only has to 'fall back' for the (still) relatively small
set of subroutines which do actually employ GPU acceleration...if & when
so invoked by one's workflow. For some users, that in of itself may very
well be effectively a "never" right from the start.

And that's why I said that if the difference is invisible to one's workflow
at the productivity level, then it can't have a positive ROI and may as
well not exist for that user.

As I have previously explained, I have no ROI so that wasn't one of my
considerations. The plain fact of the matter was that I had an aging
computer and Adobe was rejecting my GPU.

Plus such requirements are easy-to-test-for Go/NoGo's which may
very well be present for some *different* technical requirement
that's not as easy to test for.

Photoshop seems to test the GPU first and then let you know if it
won't meet their requirements in one manner or another.

True ... but again, that's not proof that said difference actually gets used
by Adobe to any significant degree.

True. But Adobe is making increasing use of the GPU and I would be
surprised if this trend does not coninue.


Plus there's also nothing stopping Adobe from making such
requirements as a means to 'future proof' their own planning,
and/or even as a means to deliberately curtail support on older
hardware (reduces Adobe's IT expenses).

Quite true. But this is all the more reason to ensure that your
hardware meets Adobes (future) requirements.

Sure ... but that can very much be a crap shoot, particularly if one
happens to pick a "better" but less popular product, since Adobe's
certification process also includes in-house qualification testing. As
such, it may be wiser to stick with a less powerful but more mainstream
GPU card because it will be more likely to be tested to be certified
and thus, be on their list.

Overall, Adobe's not really a particularly sophisticated user of GPU
potential - - the documentation webpage that someone provided the
link to illustrated this with Adobe's dire warnings about things like
how they don't support two GPU cards - - and that even merely the
presence of two different cards can cause Photoshop to crash, etc.
They also advised driving all displays off of a single card, which is
problematic for PCs wanting multiple 4K/higher displays.


And does your graphics card support such things in the future ?

Which is merely YA example on the general discussion of
strategies for "future-proofing" one's purchase decisions, so
as to notionally have a longer useful lifespan.

That's one of the major reasons why I have spec'd my machine
the way I have.

Same here - but that was still speculative on my part.

.... as it was on my part also.


You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.

Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

As well as able to attribute any such observed difference specifically
to the GPU, as opposed to faster CPU, faster RAM, faster SSD, etc: all
of the stuff which also gets coincidentally upgraded when one buys a
new system. Even replacing an old HDD/SSD with a new, larger one with
exactly the same specs can result in system changes because of a fresh
new install of the OS which has fewer patches/additions/cobwebs.


It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these
cards are made for video , the shading and special effects
filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects
and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

This is why I decided not to go for a car 0-60 of 3 seconds
as it wouldn't really get me to work any faster than a bus
in a bus lane does.
Might be more fun than sitting the bus though.

The change in bottom-line workflow productivity is really
the only thing that matters. If some Photoshop filter does
actually run faster due to GPU acceleration, it also needs
to be significant enough that the human behind the keyboard
is able to be more productive. Otherwise, its a gain that
has no real world payoff...which means its ROI isn't positive.

I'm retired, and doing it for a hobby. [...]

And thus, more the reason to keep on considering CS5/CS6
characteristics such as via Digital Lloyd's "macperformance guide"
pages, because these are still the present situation for some:
they're not doing PS as a vocation, so they've stuck with the
older versions instead of paying into CC's 'rental' business model.

I'm the reverse. I could never bring myself to pay Adobe's horrendous
up front cost (plus upgrades) but I can tolerate the monthly rental.
It's costing me less than all the things I used to buy in the attempt
to paying for CS5 or CS6.

Plus this is still relevant as a window into Adobe's historical
coding practices, since we also know that CC wasn't a top-
to-bottom 100% code rewrite that got rid of these legacies.

I don't think tghey are doing a rewrite so much as adding new features
while letting the old bits drift slowly out of sight.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Plus this is still relevant as a window into Adobe's historical
coding practices, since we also know that CC wasn't a top-
to-bottom 100% code rewrite that got rid of these legacies.

I don't think tghey are doing a rewrite so much as adding new features
while letting the old bits drift slowly out of sight.

cs5 was almost entirely rewritten from the ground up.

In article , -hh
wrote:

Overall, the problem is that Adobe's not currently using
the GPU for all processes. As such, it only has to 'fall
back' for the (still) relatively small set of subroutines
which do actually employ GPU acceleration...if & when
so invoked by one's workflow. For some users, that in of
itself may very well be effectively a "never" right from
the start.

not all things benefit from offloading to a gpu.

True enough.

when something benefits from the gpu, adobe uses the gpu.
if it doesn't, they don't.

that's exactly how it should be.

Within reason. The problem they have is that their design
architectural configuration traditionally was quite serial
and didn't allow for parallelism leveraging as parallelism
became more commonplace/feasible/beneficial.

nope. again, not everything benefits from parallelism.

much of what photoshop does is i/o bound, which can't be parallelized.

Quite true. But this is all the more reason to ensure that your
hardware meets Adobes (future) requirements.

Sure ... but that can very much be a crap shoot, particularly if one
happens to pick a "better" but less popular product, since Adobe's
certification process also includes in-house qualification testing. As
such, it may be wiser to stick with a less powerful but more mainstream
GPU card because it will be more likely to be tested to be certified
and thus, be on their list.

they can't test every card.

And those that they do test will be based on a prioritization criteria.

as it should be.

there's no point in testing cards that few people use versus ones that
many people use.

Overall, Adobe's not really a particularly sophisticated user
of GPU potential

nonsense.

Oh, and you were doing so well!

The cited Adobe webpage made it pretty clear that their
software is limited to only using one GPU card at a time.

most people have one gpu card. it's optimized for the common case.

plus, a second gpu isn't necessarily better.

again, not everything benefits from one gpu, let alone two. lots of
apps don't use multiple gpus. adobe isn't unique in that regard.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 02:53:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 01:59:21 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 03:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 19 June 2017 10:13:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---

Oh yes! I can try all kinds of exciting things which are not possible
in a Mac. :-)

I can run windows on my Mac, I could have even got the recent wannacry but sadly I could get infected by that unless running windows, I'm not sure how I can live without such a feature.
Does you're PC say it can't run Mac OS X somewhere in the instructions or perhaps on the box or case.

Can you install an Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card?

No, why would I want to it displays 4K graphiccs my imac can display 5K graphics with built in card, Plus I'm not really a games player my friend is who prefers macs, but has a PC for playing games in his spare time and he recenty brought a card for half the cost of the GTX 1070 and it works for him.
So you don;t need that graphics card even as a gamer why do you feel you need one ?


But if you really want a good graphics card why not go for the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 graphics card ?

Because itss only just coming available.

So you have a PC and upgradable PC I assume, just swop it out, sorted surely.


Because it's a work station card.

SO yuo cant put it in your PC. Perhaps yuo brought the wrong PC.

It's not the best suited to photography.

and the Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card is better suited to photography ?
You do know it's really just a lower spec gaming card.

One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.

And does your graphics card support such things in the future ?

Who can really tell? Certainly I don't know. My previous machine which
I bought on 28 January 2010 had and AMD card which at that time was at
the bottom end of Adobe's recommendations.

I wasn't realy aware that adobe had such recomedations regarding graphics cards.

There is a lot of information around, some of which hasa been cited in
this thread. In fact there is a link near the bottom of this article.

By this time last year
Adobe software had given up on using its GPU for a number of
functions. Things were not as bad as they might have been as it had an
i7 CPU and still moved along at not too slow a clip.

Strange in 2010 you decided to get a bottom of the range card, and it seems that machine has lasted 7 years although you might have updated other things I suppose. My 2010 mac mini seems very slow now, keep thinking about updating it.

It wasn't so much that I 'decided' to buy a bottom of the range card
as that it was the best card that Dell was selling in the Inspiron
range of desk machines.


My new machine may well be the last one I buy

Why ?

Am I going to be around and in a condition to buy a new machine at the
age of 90? I dunno.

and I want it to keep up
with software as far into the future as is reasonably possible.

Which I'd say is about 3-4 years for a reasnable system spend a bit more and you might stretch it to 5 years.

My old Dell lasted me just a few months short of 7 years, and in fact
it is still going. I don't expect my new machine to do any less.

That's
one of the reasons I bought the GTX 1070 instead of something lesser.

but in 6 months something much better and cheaper will be out that the problem with high end grahics cards especailly gaming cards.
I admit it;s a difficult call deciding whether to spned 500 on a cad or wait 6 mkonths and get it for 250 or get a better one in 6 months for another 500.

If you can aford to wait for it you don't need it.


You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.

Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

I certainly did on my old machine when Lightroom stopped using the GPU
for some functions.

Why did it stop using the GPU ?

Presumably a change in the software arriving with one of the upgrades.


Not sure about he latest CC but I didn't think photoshop did much with GPUs and still relied on CPU and memory.

The GTX 1070 supports 10 bit video. The 1050 does not.

So, I didnlt realise 10 bit video was important to you it could be for me as I do video I didn't know you shot video.

I don't do video but I *must* have more colours that I can possibly
see.



A friend that world in the pro video industry (doesn't do photos as such) has always said the advantage of high end graphics cards is for manutiplating 3D images in real time.

Adobe premier might take advanateg of the GPU but phjotoshop has no need to and genrally doesn't as yet.

That doesn't appear to be the case. First see the rather outdated
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb...-card-faq.html
and the more uptodate
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb...hics-card.html


Seems liie GPUs are a cause for suchj problems although I;ve not had any problems maybe Aple checks these sorts of things out before installing graphics cards in their computers, which I'm quite pleased about.

Of course Apple has only a limited range of graphics cards to deal
with.


The large amount of graphics RAM is more to sutioe lareg multiple monitors than to get a speed increase a gamer friend made that mistake he thought getting a 2GB rather than the 500MB versiohns would make his gamnes run faster it didn't
Upgrading his RAM from 4GB to 8GB did increase his gaming speed.

I have an i7-6800K, 32GB of RAM and a Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB.

That should be OK then, perhaps before swapping out the graphics card run a few tests to see how much yuor new card improves things.



If you can tell me the reason(s) for having one maybe you'll convince me I'm missing out on something, as that's when I think about upgrading things, so until I find I;m missing out on something I'm happy with my inbuilt M295X .

Are you scratching at a sore spot?

No, I just don't need to spend money on a graphics card, I can get 400 FPS at 5K high end graphics cards arent'l really aime dat still photogrphers the high specs are for video which won;t do much in speeding up processing of single still images.

Did someone give you a graphics card for free? Of course not: you
have already spent money on a graphics card.

Haven;t we all and if we need something better to speed our processing out its not always the graphics cards that is the bottleneck it usualy is for gamers.

In the case of Adobe, its the GPU which is the bottleneck.

But adobe don't really use the GPU that much.

Photoshop and Lightroom both do. And I haven't yet mentioned DxO,
which I still use from time to time.



I'll rewrite that: In that case I suggest you spend some time
researching Adobe's hardware requirements for their software.


So what are the requirements ?

I gave you some links up above.


Just a quick google.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4101332

Now that's a mottley collection of advice and some of it is wrong.

Thre;s always wrong advice out there spotting it and how to spot it can be interesting ask Trump.



Best graphics card for pushing the limits of Photoshop CC 2017

Being new to the PC world all I can get out of Adobe are the basic recommendations. What is the best graphics card on the market for photoshop?




Photoshop is rather old code and mostly doesn't use video cards or multiple CPU cores outside of a few specific features. It mostly benefits from high clockspeed both from the CPU and GPU (when it does use it). A high clockspeed integrated video on the processor can actually be better than a big expensive but lower clocked video card.

The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Yep. I read all that, but they didn't mention Lightroom or some of the
emerging photographic software from other sources.

Maybe because it hasn't emerged yet,


In any case,
longevity of the basic machine specification was what I have been
after.

Which won't increase much by buying the best graphics card today as it;ll be mid-range in 6 months, bargin basement in a couple of years.

The best way and most efficint is usully to updage things every couple of years wait too long and no one will want you old 128MB graphics card, but selling it on after a year and buying the lastest is a good stratagy for gamers.

I don't mind some fiddling but that is overdoing it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 05:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 11:49:01 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 5:53:35 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 01:59:21 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
[..]

By this time last year
Adobe software had given up on using its GPU for a number of
functions. Things were not as bad as they might have been as it had an
i7 CPU and still moved along at not too slow a clip.

Strange in 2010 you decided to get a bottom of the range card, and it
seems that machine has lasted 7 years although you might have
updated other things I suppose...

Or it is a tangible illustration of just how slowly Adobe actually gets around
to updating all of their detailed code to take advantage of changes to new
hardware architectures/etc (which differs from "same, but faster").

Correct, but Eric seems to think that adobe predict what inovations graphic card makers will do in the next 5+ years

I don't know where you get that idea from.

and as we know that's not how this works.
The hardware gets desineged & made and then the software vendors start written their code to support it.



Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

I certainly did on my old machine when Lightroom stopped using the GPU
for some functions.

Why did it stop using the GPU ?

Invariably, a business decision: Adobe didn't want to continue to pay for the
maintenance & testing of the older code which did support said older hardware.


Not sure about he latest CC but I didn't think photoshop did much with
GPUs and still relied on CPU and memory.

The GTX 1070 supports 10 bit video. The 1050 does not.

So, I didnlt realise 10 bit video was important to you it could be for me
as I do video I didn't know you shot video.

FWIW, I don't believe that this is video per se in as much as it is addressing
what the supported color depth is on the monitor display...10 vs 8 bit.


-hh
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:09:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Plus this is still relevant as a window into Adobe's historical
coding practices, since we also know that CC wasn't a top-
to-bottom 100% code rewrite that got rid of these legacies.

I don't think tghey are doing a rewrite so much as adding new features
while letting the old bits drift slowly out of sight.

cs5 was almost entirely rewritten from the ground up.

I wasn't around then. At least not in the Adobe world.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:09:47 AM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

Overall, the problem is that Adobe's not currently using
the GPU for all processes. As such, it only has to 'fall
back' for the (still) relatively small set of subroutines
which do actually employ GPU acceleration...if & when
so invoked by one's workflow. For some users, that in of
itself may very well be effectively a "never" right from
the start.

not all things benefit from offloading to a gpu.

True enough.

when something benefits from the gpu, adobe uses the gpu.
if it doesn't, they don't.

that's exactly how it should be.

Within reason. The problem they have is that their design
architectural configuration traditionally was quite serial
and didn't allow for parallelism leveraging as parallelism
became more commonplace/feasible/beneficial.

nope. again, not everything benefits from parallelism.

Oh, so you've then made a self-contradiction.


much of what photoshop does is i/o bound, which can't be parallelized.

But if it was I/O bound, then moving a computation from CPU to GPU
card & back wouldn't result in a performance gain.


Quite true. But this is all the more reason to ensure that your
hardware meets Adobes (future) requirements.

Sure ... but that can very much be a crap shoot, particularly if one
happens to pick a "better" but less popular product, since Adobe's
certification process also includes in-house qualification testing. As
such, it may be wiser to stick with a less powerful but more mainstream
GPU card because it will be more likely to be tested to be certified
and thus, be on their list.

they can't test every card.

And those that they do test will be based on a prioritization criteria.

as it should be.

there's no point in testing cards that few people use versus ones that
many people use.

Overall, Adobe's not really a particularly sophisticated user
of GPU potential

nonsense.

Oh, and you were doing so well!

The cited Adobe webpage made it pretty clear that their
software is limited to only using one GPU card at a time.

most people have one gpu card. it's optimized for the common case.

plus, a second gpu isn't necessarily better.

again, not everything benefits from one gpu, let alone two. lots of
apps don't use multiple gpus. adobe isn't unique in that regard.

Irrelevant & a distraction attempt.

You're trying to deflect from admitting that you were wrong in disagreeing
with my statement that Adobe is not a particularly sophisticated user of
GPU potential.

(and you conveniently snipped that text)

As I had said:

"Contrasting that limitation on sophistication, I can personally
recall working on a project with image analysis that used
multiple discrete GPU cards (IIRC, ~8) ... way back in 2004.

Now you may wish to claim that Adobe is "sophisticated",
but compared to how others have done distributed graphical
processing across multiple discrete GPU cards, Adobe's
current status is over a decade behind the start of the art."


And now you're trying to rationalize why Adobe only supports but a
single GPU card with a "most people" statement: that's a reasonably
good case for business optimization - - but it simply does not support
a claim of a superior level of technological sophistication.


-hh

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:04:13 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
-hh wrote
Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
No, but then the processing falls back to the CPU which can be
be quite a bit slower.

True, but only if Adobe actually is using that hardware somehow/somewhere.

Now granted, we do know that *some* filters/etc have been rewritten
by Adobe to leverage GPUs ... but [...]

Overall, [Adobe] only has to 'fall back' for the (still) relatively small
set of subroutines which do actually employ GPU acceleration...if & when
so invoked by one's workflow. For some users, that in of itself may very
well be effectively a "never" right from the start.

And that's why I said that if the difference is invisible to one's
workflow at the productivity level, then it can't have a positive ROI
and may as well not exist for that user.

As I have previously explained, I have no ROI so that wasn't
one of my considerations.

Understood, but the problem with using that approach is that it
also means that you *never* have any justification to buy a new
PC no matter how slow the old one becomes.

And ditto for buying the new software that's calling for higher
hardware specs ... there's no classical 'ROI' for a non-business
application there either to justify the change.

OTOH, if we think of 'ROI' in a less business/finance formalized
sense, then it is more of a "goodness of the choice" metric, and
my point was that if you don't notice any real world effect, then
it probably isn't a big problem that needs addressing ($$).


The plain fact of the matter was that I had an aging
computer and Adobe was rejecting my GPU.

Understood, but did this become known because you noticed
that your workflow slowed down, or merely because you
happened to check the config/specs?


Plus such requirements are easy-to-test-for Go/NoGo's which may
very well be present for some *different* technical requirement
that's not as easy to test for.

Photoshop seems to test the GPU first and then let you know if it
won't meet their requirements in one manner or another.

True ... but again, that's not proof that said difference actually
gets used by Adobe to any significant degree.

True. But Adobe is making increasing use of the GPU and I would be
surprised if this trend does not continue.

Understood, but this is also a business. Adobe's under pressure
to be [more] profitable, so if there aren't customers screaming
for more power that represents a threat to revenue, the cost to
even merely maintain code will come under pressure. Best bet IMO
is more of a 'status quo', although likely to have some slimming
(in net) of just how many GPU cards that they regularly certify.


It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these
cards are made for video , the shading and special effects
filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects
and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

This is why I decided not to go for a car 0-60 of 3 seconds
as it wouldn't really get me to work any faster than a bus
in a bus lane does.
Might be more fun than sitting the bus though.

The change in bottom-line workflow productivity is really
the only thing that matters. If some Photoshop filter does
actually run faster due to GPU acceleration, it also needs
to be significant enough that the human behind the keyboard
is able to be more productive. Otherwise, its a gain that
has no real world payoff...which means its ROI isn't positive.

I'm retired, and doing it for a hobby. [...]

And thus, more the reason to keep on considering CS5/CS6
characteristics such as via Digital Lloyd's "macperformance guide"
pages, because these are still the present situation for some:
they're not doing PS as a vocation, so they've stuck with the
older versions instead of paying into CC's 'rental' business model.

I'm the reverse. I could never bring myself to pay Adobe's horrendous
up front cost (plus upgrades) but I can tolerate the monthly rental.
It's costing me less than all the things I used to buy in the attempt
to paying for CS5 or CS6.

Historically, I suspect that this all still has a ways to play out.
Adobe did used to offer cheap(ish) initial buy-ins to their product
line such as through Student pricing, which also resulted in a good
chunk of the Hobby/SMB market. Much of the change to CC's rental
market was IMO because these customers weren't buying every upgrade,
in no small part because of the poor ROI being offered by Adobe on
said 'upgrades'. That's also why Adobe also embarked on imposing
additional rules to sunset upgrade qualification on older versions,
so as to force customers "up or out".

Nevertheless, if CS 5/6 suffices for what you need and you can
find a valid license to buy, it probably will pay for itself in
a year or two's worth of CC rentals.

In the end, though, this is all just business and there's not a
good business reason for CC's code to not just be recycled CS code
as much as possible. As such, these old CS observations still
apply until they've been confirmed as no longer applicable.


Plus this is still relevant as a window into Adobe's historical
coding practices, since we also know that CC wasn't a top-
to-bottom 100% code rewrite that got rid of these legacies.

I don't think tghey are doing a rewrite so much as adding new
features while letting the old bits drift slowly out of sight.

Exactly: because of these business interests, CC was not a 100%
"clean sheet" rewrite to make it _better_, but was the more
profitable approach of switching to this rental/lease sales model,
using the legacy CS code with bugfixes, support updates and the
occasional improvement. Its business, not technology.


-hh

On 6/20/2017 4:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 20, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , wrote:
Snip
Take out corporate sales and the numbers are still overwhelmingly in
favor of Windows PCs and you know that.
they aren't.

look around. there are ****loads of macs.
Why not just take a poll among the usual suspects in this room?

As best I can recall the Mac users here are Alan Browne, Davoud, David B.,
Sandman, Whisky-Dave, you, and me. That is 7 confirmed, there might be a few
more.

Confirmed Windows users are Eric, PeterN, Tony Cooper, PAS, Mayayana, Bill W,
Noons, David Taylor, and probably at least 5 more for around 13.

Then there is Floyd who has no time for Windows, or MacOS, along with the
other Linux devotees.

We've got two desktops. One is an older HP in our guestroom that was
bought when Windows Vista was released. I have Windows 10 on it now and
it's still going strong. It gets used mostly by guests when they stay
over. My desktop is one I built about 1 1/2 years ago.

We have three laptops in the house. Mine is seldom used. My wife
refuses to give up her tired old laptop for the new one I bought her
over a year ago. But very soon she'll have no choice

I plan on getting an iMac within the next year to see how I like it.