Tue Jan 29 20:01:51 EST 2013 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>I needed to update to an Intel-based system to run LR3. I did ... I'm >glad I did, and a bottom end new system was much much faster than my >old PowerPC top of the line system. I don't blame Adobe for making >their business decisions. Although I wasn't pleased to buy a new >system at that time, I do what I need to in the context of the tools I >want to use. I didn't need to update to LR3 at the time, but it was >worth doing it for other reasons. > >Sitting around being "angry at Adobe" is just a waste of time and >energy. You don't want to use their software? Go use something else. >There are plenty of options. Godfrey, you are making an assumption, and a wrong one (even if you only used those words as a colloquial expression). I am not "sitting around". I am busy with too many things to be just sitting or even to be bothered with upgrading 2-3-year old systems just for using LR4 while everything else I need runs just fine.[*] I choose to be running LR3. By making their business decisions, Adobe created a few inconveniences for me, but those are small enough to avoid rushing with upgrades or changing the workflow (in any way). The costs of upgrades are not negligibly low, and the alternative costs (my time) are prohibitively high at the moment. (See a brief sketch of those below, in my response to Zos.) Obviously, I will upgrade my systems, but when I decide, not Adobe. ----- [*] Moreover, there is a danger that some older software that I still need might not run or even install on the new system. ----- But Adobe inconvenienced me enough that I am happy to "yell" at them publically, even though in this case it won't lead to any tangible result. But, maybe it would cause a bit of a resonance somewhere, and next time, they would think for a bit longer before making their decisions. Besides, I despise when people (like Mr. Kelby) are using fallacies to defend their decisions and are very arrogant about that. Overall, I have a very diverse opinion about Adobe. On one hand, there are several good software solutions created (or acquired) by Adobe, including LR. On another hand, every so often, I encounter something that the company does in an awkward way that creates some inconvenience for me as a customer. That doesn't preclude me from using their software, but often, I find my ways around their idiosyncrasies. Enough is said on the topic, and I don't want to waist more time arguing about things we can not change. Tue Jan 29 20:11:12 EST 2013 Zos Xavius wrote: > Lr4 is a huge improvement over 3. Bzz.. and a huge resource hog.. And the last time I checked, LR4 was still running slower than LR3. (I don't know if they fixed that with 4.3) > XP is no longer supported ... Sir, you didn't read what I suggested to read, and you didn't bother to check your facts. So, you fall into the trap of committing the same fallacy as Mr. Kelby. MS is still oficially providing "extended support" for WinXP (SP3) until April 8, 2014. That is more than 1 year away from now (and more than 2 years from when Adobe abandoned WinXP). > Seriously do yourself a favor and upgrade. A cheap 300 pc is > likely better than anything that had xp installed on it > originally. I appreciate your concern and your desire to help, but... You make conclusions based on wrong assumptions. You can choose to buy cheap PCs every 2 years (and complain about your problems), or you can buy well-balanced system with carefully picked _reliable_ components and have it running for much longer. There are at least two issues/differences here: 1. reliability of a cheap PC (Will it still work in 4-5 years? Are you willing to deal with premature hardware problems?) and 2. ability to run and (more importantly, -) install certain software on a newer OS. If you are only playing games and running software that you upgrade every year anyway, the first scenario might be fine. If you need continuity and need certain software of particular versions (and on the same computer), then the second scenario is the way to go. Some software may not run on Win 7, or its installation may not be available anymore (if it installs itself over the net, from the manufacturer's server). And I have those. And this is just one reason. Also, I don't have time to reinstall every 2 years all the software I need on the desktop. Needless to say, a $300 PC is unlikely to support two monitors at a reasonable rate. > As far as your wifes laptop not running windows 7...if you put at > least a gig or two of ram in the machine (rather cheap upgrade I > might add....) Zos, if you read my message more carefully, you would have realized that I was talking about a _netbook_. Netbooks (at least before 2011, those that came with WinXP) typically came with 1GB or 2GB of RAM, and the limit was either 1 or 2 GB. In my case, I have 2GB, and that's all what is supported. So, your comment about the memory is irrelevant. But have you ever tried to find drivers for any laptop or netbook for the OS that the particular model was not supposed to support? (I even leave aside the fact that, according to PC World tests circa 2009, Win7 runs slightly slower compared to WinXP on the same _netbook_.) So, even if all the software that is needed would be able to install (and I know that is it is not the case) on Win7, to fully upgrade two WinXP machines, I would have to make the following investments: 1. New replacement desktop: $1500-2000. 2. Replacement for the netbook: First, it is hard (close to impossible) to buy a 10" netbook with 2GB of RAM, - thanks to the tablet boom. If one is lucky, that would be in the vicinity of $400-450. Otherwise, a new small-size [ultraportable] laptop would be larger (11" or more likely 12"), and would cost from $800-900 and up. Besides, it would not have the same battery life as a netbook does but only about a half of that. 3. Cost of the software replacement [to be counted]. 4. My time 1) to configure everything in Windows properly on two different systems and 2) to re-install all the software needed (and then 3) - transfer files (photo, video, data, ...): too much to afford at the moment. > Your workflow would be a lot less complicated too if you ran the > same lightroom everywhere. And that's what I do... LR 3.6. Tue Jan 29 20:43:24 EST 2013 David Parsons wrote: > PentaxForums has had user generated lens profiles for a couple years > now, since the feature was introduced in version 3.x. You copy them > to a specific folder and LR can use them. Thank you, David, that might be useful. I see this thread: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/102344-wanted-adobe-lens-profiles-2.html Do you know a better link to a single list/table that has all those profiles in one place? Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
