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

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 With Wndows-7 available, Vista is
obsolete.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.

In article ,
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.

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 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".

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

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

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?

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

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