On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Thibouille wrote: > This is exactly what I'm talking about: fixes not enhanced > capabilities. v9.0 -> 9.02 is indded a good example. if ACR 3 is only > comatiblme with CS2, OK if then still update ACR2 with new cameras. I > don't expect to get new capabilities without paying for that: sure it > would be nice but I'm not stupid.
The Camera Raw 2 to 3 change was a major update, as Camera Raw 3 has huge changes in it that are in sync with new back-end services available only in CS2 and Bridge. They kept compatibility for version 3.x in the Basic operation mode for Photoshop Elements, which doesn't support any of Camera Raw's feature set beyond the Adjust and Detail tabs. Adding new cameras to the Camera Raw 2.x plugin would mean maintaining a second parallel development effort, which would be too costly. However, you can process the DNG files output from the combines Camera Raw and DNG Converter v3.x package with Camera Raw v2.4, so the upgrade path is there for you, without cost. > ... What wanna have for this > price is the certainty an expensive software like PS will work with > next OS. ... Unfortunately, nothing can be guaranteed as no vendor can know for sure what will happen with future versions of an OS, any OS. The depth and extent to which fixes and patching can be effective is variable. > Imagine myself 6 months ago: I'm a "normal" user which means I'm not > playing with beta from next OSes blabla, I buy PS CS2 and then Vista > comes and I realize it is not compatible (or has quite restricted > capabilities) when run under Vista. Basicaly I'm f*****, I'm not? If you want to upgrade from XP to Vista, well, what for? Why would you want to upgrade until you know what you're going to get from it? Using software to do your work often means balancing the cost of new, desirable features against established reliability of a working system. You pay for the desirable new things as you accept them, the price should always include the cost of whatever other side effects are created. > BTW Godfrey since you seem to be pretty much used to Adobe softwares, > do you think Adobe supports all their softwares the same way? I mean, > is PSE well supported? I'm sure I could be satisfied with PSE * if > they support it as what Adobe brand would lead me to beleive they > would*. I don't ask the same support as PS CS, of course, you pay for > that too. I haven't used the full suite of Adobe products, but I've gotten the same level of excellent support when using Acrobat 8 Standard that I get for Photoshop CS2. I don't belong to or purchase any of their more dedicated professional support programs. Of course, it might be that they have 10 support people to handle 100,000 PS CS2 users and 10 support people to handle 600,000 PSE users, and thus support practices for the lower priced product are more tuned to 1-to-Many support tools, which might not give quite the same "warm fuzzies" of the more expensive products. I'd consider that normal for low cost, high volume products vs higher cost, lower volume products. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
