suggestions on upgrading to a new pc

"Fotoguy" wrote in message
...
[]
Wait for Windows 7. Last I read, it's suppose to be released in
October,
but even if it isn't, wait until it is. And I wouldn't opt for getting
Vista with a free upgrade to 7 either. I've never been a big fan of
"upgrading" across OS versions. Too many problems. Clean installs are
less problematical.

So, stick with XP until 7 is released, then get or build that new
system.

Windows-7 has been "released to manufacture", and I'm running that version
right now. It is available for download from Microsoft if you subscribe
to certain services. Running fine for my applications, and very similar
to the Release Candidate version.

Cheers,
David

Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:13:43 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Once you've got a Linux box configured the way you want it, it just
runs. No defragging, no Registry cleaning, no anti-virus crap
slowing down the system, etc, etc.


Hello, Bob:

Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE,
Millennium and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems
that you mentioned, above.

Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit
(with SP1).

Wait for Windows 7. Last I read, it's suppose to be released in
October, but even if it isn't, wait until it is. And I wouldn't opt
for getting Vista with a free upgrade to 7 either. I've never been a
big fan of "upgrading" across OS versions. Too many problems. Clean
installs are less problematical.

So, stick with XP until 7 is released, then get or build that new
system.

I think that all you folks who think that Windows 7 is some kind of "fix"
for Vista's "problems" are going to get an unpleasant surprise.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:20:50 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , Fotoguy
wrote:

Photoshop, Lightroom and aperture run on linux? As neither Adobe
and Apple produce Linux versions the answer is "no"

You can run Windows apps under Linux or OSX by using Crossover
(http:// www.codeweavers.com/products/).

you can run *some* windows apps. you *can't* run stuff like photoshop
cs4 and you certainly can't run aperture since it's not a windows app
at all.

Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or
CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes.

but not perfectly.

They didn't even run perfectly under Windows. ;-)


it translates to linux, but it doesn't translate anything to mac api
calls, and why would it since photoshop, lightroom and aperture
already run natively on a mac.

Crossover Mac is designed to run Windows apps on a Mac. If that app
already exist natively for the Mac, yes, there is no need for
Crossover, but if that app doesn't, then you can. Evidently, there
must be enough of a need, otherwise, Crossover Mac wouldn't exist.

crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api
calls.

Yes, right, since Apple used NetBSD, a Unix-like OS, as the foundation of
OSX, there are no "Mac" calls anymore, technically. And strictly
speaking those would be Unix-like calls, since Linux and OSX are not Unix
or Unix clones, just Unix-like OSes. There are significant differences,
otherwise there would be patent and copyright issues.


Also, FWIW, Crossover was originally called Crossover Office and was a
highly specialized version of WINE designed specifically to run MS Office
under Linux. And it worked very, very well, too. But people discovered
that it would also run other Windows apps with varying degrees of
success. So, over the past few years Crossover Office evolved into
Crossover. It worked better when it just ran Office, virtually 100%
compatible. At least, until MS would come out with a new and improved
version of Office. ;-)


--
Fotoguy
BestInClass.com
"Personalized digital camera recommendations"
http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras

Fotoguy wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:20:50 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , Fotoguy
wrote:

Photoshop, Lightroom and aperture run on linux? As neither Adobe
and Apple produce Linux versions the answer is "no"

You can run Windows apps under Linux or OSX by using Crossover
(http:// www.codeweavers.com/products/).

you can run *some* windows apps. you *can't* run stuff like
photoshop cs4 and you certainly can't run aperture since it's not
a windows app at all.

Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4.
Or CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes.

but not perfectly.

They didn't even run perfectly under Windows. ;-)


it translates to linux, but it doesn't translate anything to mac
api calls, and why would it since photoshop, lightroom and aperture
already run natively on a mac.

Crossover Mac is designed to run Windows apps on a Mac. If that app
already exist natively for the Mac, yes, there is no need for
Crossover, but if that app doesn't, then you can. Evidently, there
must be enough of a need, otherwise, Crossover Mac wouldn't exist.

crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api
calls.

Yes, right, since Apple used NetBSD, a Unix-like OS, as the
foundation of OSX, there are no "Mac" calls anymore, technically.
And strictly speaking those would be Unix-like calls, since Linux and
OSX are not Unix or Unix clones, just Unix-like OSes. There are
significant differences, otherwise there would be patent and
copyright issues.

However the Unix world for the most part uses X to support the GUI, while
Apple has their own GUI that does not run on top of X, so there are indeed
"Mac" calls.

Also, FWIW, Crossover was originally called Crossover Office and was a
highly specialized version of WINE designed specifically to run MS
Office under Linux. And it worked very, very well, too. But people
discovered that it would also run other Windows apps with varying
degrees of success. So, over the past few years Crossover Office
evolved into Crossover. It worked better when it just ran Office,
virtually 100% compatible. At least, until MS would come out with a
new and improved version of Office. ;-)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

Which does not refer to all files systems, idiot.

Wake up.

Stop being a stupid ass.

My set (all modern unix filesystems) is a
superset of your "in common use" set.

No, moron, it isn't.

Yes, Mr. Fischer, it is.

I listed the three most common file systems. Unix file systems are a
minority. And sisnce you apparently don't even realize that there are
several differnt file systems used with Unix OSs it's clear that
you're just an idiot spouting religious crap.

--
Ray Fischer

J. Clarke wrote:
Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:13:43 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Once you've got a Linux box configured the way you want it, it just
runs. No defragging, no Registry cleaning, no anti-virus crap
slowing down the system, etc, etc.


Hello, Bob:

Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE,
Millennium and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems
that you mentioned, above.

Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit
(with SP1).

Wait for Windows 7. Last I read, it's suppose to be released in
October, but even if it isn't, wait until it is. And I wouldn't opt
for getting Vista with a free upgrade to 7 either. I've never been a
big fan of "upgrading" across OS versions. Too many problems. Clean
installs are less problematical.

So, stick with XP until 7 is released, then get or build that new
system.

I think that all you folks who think that Windows 7 is some kind of "fix"
for Vista's "problems" are going to get an unpleasant surprise.

I think that you're a cynic who likes to complain.

--
Ray Fischer

TheRealSteve wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009 18:29:04 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
TheRealSteve wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009 03:25:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:30:03 +0100, Chris H
In message , ray
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:20:44 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

So it's quite obvious that using GIMP on Linux (if it meets his
requirements) would be a big advantage. Even more when he does not
need to upgrade versions in the near future.

big if. gimp is nowhere near what photoshop cs4 is. any why wouldn't he
need to upgrade?

It says volumes about the "quality" of garbage like GIMP that people
will pay $600 for Photoshop when GIMP is free.

Especially when they'll gladly pay that $600 without even TRYING GIMP to
see if it will do what they need or not.

I did try Gimp. It is not as good as photoshop... not quite true there
is a learning curve with photoshop. For many Elements may be better.

For others, Gimp is better than photoshop. That would include anyone
who cares about the quality of the resampling necessary when you
resize, rotate images, correct distortions, etc. Gimp has the option
of using the much superior sinc-lanzcos interpolation.

Not only are you an idiot, you're a dishonest idiot. Nobody cares
about your "sinc-lanzcos interpolation" because it doesn't actually
make any difference that anybody notices.

Just because *YOU* don't care about the quality of your images

Just because you're an anal-retentive idiot with no artistic ability
doesn't mean that anybody else should care about your little cult.

Thank you for proving yet again how childish you are.

Just because YOU care more about toys than art and are willing to lie
in order to rationalize your lack of ability doesn't mean that
everybody else should join your cult.

--
Ray Fischer

Fotoguy wrote:
nospam wrote:
Fotoguy

Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or
CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes.

but not perfectly.

They didn't even run perfectly under Windows. ;-)

I've worked for several major software companies, including Adobe, and
the fact is that all software ships with bugs. Most of the bugs are
inconsequential (a pixel too wide on the screen, a glitch when the
planets line up just right) but it's just way too expensive to
eliminate all bugs.

crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api
calls.

Yes, right, since Apple used NetBSD, a Unix-like OS, as the foundation of
OSX, there are no "Mac" calls anymore, technically.

MacOS is based upon the Mach kernel with BSD on top, their own HFS+
file system, and many of their own changes.

And strictly
speaking those would be Unix-like calls, since Linux and OSX are not Unix
or Unix clones, just Unix-like OSes.

Nobody runs "Unix" anymore. It's all variations. Most provide system
calls that allow programs written for the Unix API to work.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I think that all you folks who think that Windows 7 is some kind of
"fix"
for Vista's "problems" are going to get an unpleasant surprise.

I think that you're a cynic who likes to complain.

Mr. Clarke is far more than that.

And he doesn't swear almost all of the time, nor call folk who disagree
with him morons, idiots, etc.

And he doesn't tell others to not feed trolls, while doing so himself.

Sheesh.

--
lsmft

On 23 Aug 2009 17:52:26 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009 18:29:04 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
TheRealSteve wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009 03:25:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:30:03 +0100, Chris H
In message , ray
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:20:44 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

So it's quite obvious that using GIMP on Linux (if it meets his
requirements) would be a big advantage. Even more when he does not
need to upgrade versions in the near future.

big if. gimp is nowhere near what photoshop cs4 is. any why wouldn't he
need to upgrade?

It says volumes about the "quality" of garbage like GIMP that people
will pay $600 for Photoshop when GIMP is free.

Especially when they'll gladly pay that $600 without even TRYING GIMP to
see if it will do what they need or not.

I did try Gimp. It is not as good as photoshop... not quite true there
is a learning curve with photoshop. For many Elements may be better.

For others, Gimp is better than photoshop. That would include anyone
who cares about the quality of the resampling necessary when you
resize, rotate images, correct distortions, etc. Gimp has the option
of using the much superior sinc-lanzcos interpolation.

Not only are you an idiot, you're a dishonest idiot. Nobody cares
about your "sinc-lanzcos interpolation" because it doesn't actually
make any difference that anybody notices.

Just because *YOU* don't care about the quality of your images

Just because you're an anal-retentive idiot with no artistic ability
doesn't mean that anybody else should care about your little cult.

Thank you for proving yet again how childish you are.

Just because YOU care more about toys than art and are willing to lie
in order to rationalize your lack of ability doesn't mean that
everybody else should join your cult.

Calling me a liar for telling the truth and pointing out the fact that
you said just above that you don't care about the quality of your
images doesn't help your credability very much.