CS4 VERY NICE!

[jjj]

Alt+Tab and Cmd+Tab do NOT do what I described.

I wrote "demote to the background", not "switch to another application", which is what Alt+Tab and Cmd+Tab do.

Why would you want to demote to background, unless you are switching to another app? If not switching to another app, who cares  what programme is at front or back? Or is it just the concept of being able to do something and not any actual usefulness that you are on about. If you just want to see the programme behind, Alt+Tabing to it, is very easy. Or if you click on another programme on Taskbar, it comes to front of the programme you want at back.
I'm curious to know why you want to be able to do whatever it is that you want to do, that is so very difficult using the above methods.

Horses for courses, I find Alt+Tab to be extremely clunky in Windows XP, .....

Simple, elegant, very, very easy to use and extremely efficient is how I would describe it. How could it be any easier? I've used fancier versions and they usually add nothing of value IMO. Though I like how you can also Quit via Cmd+Tab in OSX.

.....though Vista's copied functionality from MacOS X where you can use the mouse to select which application is an improvement.

only if you don't know how to use it in first place! Why use a mouse to slow down an extremely easy keyboard shortcut, when you can already have selected whichever programme you want, far more quickly by alt+tabbing through the list? From your comments, I would still say you don't know how to use Alt+Tab.

I believe you should read my post to the end, and you'd see that I'm fully aware of this position.

I did read all the post. But I repeat,  who here cares about OSs that don't run the software needed. The OS being more customisable means nada if it doesn't run the software required.

No, the GIMP sucks bigtime.
However, there are professional photographers who are happy to use Bibble, or other photo editing packages for e.g. Linux.
Whether you consider Bibble and these other packages to be "pro level" or not is of course a different matter.

One decent piece of software does not make Linux generally usable for pro photographers.

But I haven't claimed that this was one of the strengths of Linux, I was responding to an outrageous claim regarding Windows' configurability.

We are on a photography forum, populated mostly by pros and I took the comments regarding the customisability of Windows to be relation to OSX not some irrelevant OS that is very unlikely to be used by most people on the forum. If debating about different MFDSLRs attributes in the studio, would you start talking about the benefits of P+S cameras and how much easier they fit in your pocket?  Try reading posts in context for a change, plus you appear to prefer splitting hairs, rather than talk about the actual topic it seems, judging by your recent posts.

[jjj]

Thanks, man.  One thing I've read, however, is that a PS install anywhere other than the "C" drive may cause problems.  Apparently, your setup is working.  Is there anything special you had to do to make PS run from "D"?

You just select where to install it on installation!  And it works fine.
Just as the OS doesn't need to be on the C drive. In fact I prefer not to have anything on C drive when using Windows, a lots of malware/viruses work on the assumption of default locations on C drive. I've often run a dual boot machine, so only one OS could be on C anyway.
My last PC desktop was something like C=OS Page File, D=Programmes, E=XP,  F=XP [second test install]  G=Optical drive and H-Z was various storage drives. And yes I got up to Z!

[dwdallam]

Thanks, man.  One thing I've read, however, is that a PS install anywhere other than the "C" drive may cause problems.  Apparently, your setup is working.  Is there anything special you had to do to make PS run from "D"?

John

Naw. It runs fine on any drive. I forgot to tell you to swap teh Adobe scratch disk from C to anotehr drive, one that adobe isn't on. It's the same concept as the Windows page file thing I wrote about.

[dwdallam]

You've been able to do lots of stuff in Windows through third party applications since the very early days of Windows, that's nothing new, but it's not configurability, it means that Windows is extentable.

There's nothing unique about Windows in what you say, and you surely must see that I'm describing things that are easily configurable in another GUI - and has been for 15 years! - but which require third-party extensions, obscure incantations, or are simply impossible (you're not even sure what "demote to the background" means, you think I'm talking about activating the desktop!).


I've been using almost every ordinary Windows version since version 1.0. I've never found it efficient and intuitive.

(Exceptions: Windows ME, Windows NT 3.1, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, plus various specialist releases for mobile/embedded devices and tablets.)

I have, however, found it usable, even if there are many obstacles against efficient use.


Somehow, I think you underestimate the possibility that computer industry professionals with a few years' experience might not have been there before you.

I agree that there are things about recent Windows versions which indeed are easy to do and simple, but that's in comparison with earlier Windows versions.

I even know of quite a few things that Windows does better than my OS of choice, even for parts of my work.

But ease of configurability of the GUI is, unfortunately, not where Windows excels. I've already written where I think that is.

I think it's a completely honest mistake to make, to think that the most used OS platform in the world is also the "best" at everything it does, and that it does everything it does well. I don't think that's true for any OS platform. Experience certainly shows otherwise.

As a photographer, I'm torn between Windows and MacOS X, which both have the necessary application base to be the most useful.

Time and again, I end up defending my use of Windows with Photoshop and other software that I think I need.

That doesn't mean I have to think Windows is the best thing since sliced bread.

Jani, who cares? As long as you can get done whatever you need done w/o writing code, and it's fairly efficient using "extensible" third party programs, which will give you even more configuration options than a very configurable OS, simply because the OS's designers can't include every option everyone wants. I would argue that if you want the arrow in your leg to stop hurting, pull it out, and forget about who shot it. I generally agree with everything you have said, but I don't think there will ever be an OS that does things that are most easy for you, as an individual. I know what you are saying though. I went BALLISTIC when I saw the Vista file explorer. I mean, it's incredibly stupid IQ wise. I just downloaded a free dual pane explorer, and everything was great. I stopped trying to force Windows into my worldview a long time ago. I just "extend" it now. Microsoft just needs a good kick in the ass by some REAL competition for its OS. Then we would see some real improvements in the areas you suggest.

I still don't get the point of the "background" thing you want. How does it make the work flow better, faster, easier? If you want instant access to Windows programs that are opened, you can put the task bar at the top of the screen I guess. That's how I have mine. I don't understand why "demote to background" is so important, but that's because I don't know what you mean.

[dwdallam]

Actually doing those jobs now removed from PS is better done in Bridge, hence why they were placed there. You used to be able open all your images into say the web package into PS from Bridge anyway, so why bother going into PS at all if Bridge can do the same thing? This way you can work in PS whilst Bridge makes a gallery. Though I have a  customised version of previous PS web galleries that I used to use and now doesn't work in Bridge, So I have to do that in PS still, if I want to use it, but it's easy enough to do so.
 Having said that I hated the crappy and clunky interface and lack of any real feedback when tweaking the web galleries. You can preview any change you make now which is a vast improvement. Though a lack of savable presets is not so good.
Bridge is a very useful and powerful programme, much better in many ways than LR is. I've used LR a lot less since installing Bridge CS4.  Not opening it is like removing part of PS's functionality, I have Bridge open all the time and see no need to close it.
Bridge actually used to be an integrated part of PS, it was made a separate programme so other software could utilise it as well.
Sounds like you need to learn how to use Bridge, rather than Bridge itself being bad.

I've been using Bridge since it was available, but I use LR2 now. The bridge options don't work for me. Do I need to install them in bridge? You do have a good point in that Bridge can do the contact sheets while I work in PS, which is an improvement. However, there is no reason to have Bridge open when I use LR. And Bridge is only a file browser, not a database. LR's search and tagging function is far superior to anything you can do in Bridge. Not only that but I can take just the catalog from LR and work on the images that are NOT EVEN ON THE DRIVE I'M WORKING ON, such as a laptop while traveling. Synchronize it with the drive the images are on, and they update automatically--the adjustments. Bridge CS4 is an improvement though for sure.

[jani]

I've thought quite a lot about that, but given that Adobe officially doesn't support xp 64, I'm concerned that future PS updates/fixes might create lack of compatibility.  I haven't A-B'd xp 64 against Vista, and I've read mixed reviews for each OS.

XP Pro x64 edition seems to have been a hidden customer beta.

Vendor support has been dwindling fast lately, and e.g. Apple have started disabling features in their software if you run it on XP Pro x64 (their Vista x64 versions won't install, and the 32-bit versions are crippled).

New drivers for other hardware is hard to obtain, also.

I'd say that XP Pro x64 is rather dead.

That's unfortunate for my laptop, which is based on that OS. I'll probably have to convert it to other use.

[jani]

Why would you want to demote to background, unless you are switching to another app?

Let's say that I have limited screen real estate, and that I'm editing a photo.

While editing it, I have the need of comparing another photo.

Both cannot be displayed at the same time, but I don't need to view more than the part I'm editing at a single time, yet still need to occasionally view a larger view of the image.

It's far quicker to demote the working image to the background, thereby keeping the reference image in the foreground, while continuing to work on the the working image.

You might say "just reduce the window size and use the scrollbars" is the answer to that, and in some cases, yes it is.

There are other uses as well, e.g. commenting on something in text while looking at it; then you might need to see the whole picture, and it won't bother you as much if only one line of the text you're writing is visible at any time.

Or is it just the concept of being able to do something and not any actual usefulness that you are on about.

Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not useful.

Simple, elegant, very, very easy to use and extremely efficient is how I would describe it. How could it be any easier? I've used fancier versions and they usually add nothing of value IMO. Though I like how you can also Quit via Cmd+Tab in OSX.
only if you don't know how to use it in first place! Why use a mouse to slow down an extremely easy keyboard shortcut, when you can already have selected whichever programme you want, far more quickly by alt+tabbing through the list? From your comments, I would still say you don't know how to use Alt+Tab.

I'll cede the possibility that I "don't know how to use Alt+Tab", since there may be a hidden shortcut there somewhere that I don't know about, that will accurately let me select application number 8 of 17 quicker than hitting Tab another seven times after the first Alt+Tab.

What is that shortcut, BTW?

One decent piece of software does not make Linux generally usable for pro photographers.

What about seven? Seventy? Five hundred? Twenty thousand? Where is the limit?

As I said, I know pro photographers who exlusively use Linux. That's their choice, and -- interestingly enough to you, I suppose -- I wouldn't.

If debating about different MFDSLRs attributes in the studio, would you start talking about the benefits of P+S cameras and how much easier they fit in your pocket?

No, but I might point out usability features on the P+S cameras which are far superior to MFDBs, when an MFDB owner went "OMG! The new Aptus back has GreatFeature! Aptus backs have the best, most easily used, configurable interface for everyday use for anybody, why didnt ANYONE think of this before?"

Then it might be relevant to point out that P+S cameras had that (and other features) for the past ten years or so, might it not?

Try reading posts in context for a change, plus you appear to prefer splitting hairs, rather than talk about the actual topic it seems, judging by your recent posts.

Good luck with that.

[jani]

I still don't get the point of the "background" thing you want. How does it make the work flow better, faster, easier? If you want instant access to Windows programs that are opened, you can put the task bar at the top of the screen I guess. That's how I have mine. I don't understand why "demote to background" is so important, but that's because I don't know what you mean.

Essentially, it lets you continue to place the active window in the background, while not necessarily switching focus to the foreground window. It just makes for a faster workflow, especially with focus-follows-mouse or sloppy-focus.

I'm not quite as grossed out by the Vista interface as you are, though.

[jjj]

Let's say that I have limited screen real estate, and that I'm editing a photo.
While editing it, I have the need of comparing another photo.
Both cannot be displayed at the same time, but I don't need to view more than the part I'm editing at a single time, yet still need to occasionally view a larger view of the image.
It's far quicker to demote the working image to the background, thereby keeping the reference image in the foreground, while continuing to work on the the working image.
You might say "just reduce the window size and use the scrollbars" is the answer to that, and in some cases, yes it is.
There are other uses as well, e.g. commenting on something in text while looking at it; then you might need to see the whole picture, and it won't bother you as much if only one line of the text you're writing is visible at any time.

Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not useful.

I considered this for quite a while and still cannot see why I would ever do what you suggest. I think this is where a video screen grab is needed as sometimes these things can make far more sense when viewed in action.
This idea may work fine for you, but it just seems unecessary, I would simply tile the two images. The fact that one is background and one foreground is irrelevant. You also said 'both [images] cannot be displayed at same time' How would you have this issue? As that sounds like a programme isue and not anOS issue.

I'll cede the possibility that I "don't know how to use Alt+Tab", since there may be a hidden shortcut there somewhere that I don't know about, that will accurately let me select application number 8 of 17 quicker than hitting Tab another seven times after the first Alt+Tab.

What is that shortcut, BTW?

It's still Alt+Tab actually.
Do it quickly and you simply switch to last app, that's the one I use the most.
Alt+Tab and if you don't release Tab, you cycle through the apps. Let go when it hits whatever you want, how simple is that?
Alt+ repeated Tab to step cycle through is also so easy, I certainly wouldn't want to use a mouse to select the icon. Plus it isn't really a good option if using mouse left handed, as I do.
Alt+Shft+Tab does it backwards. Cntr+ Tab cyles through document and shift is also modifer for opposite way there too. Though Apps aren't too consisentent about this, Firefox does it really clumsily when moving through tabs and Opera does it well.

What about seven? Seventy? Five hundred? Twenty thousand? Where is the limit?

Enough good apps is the right number.    Just Adobe software would suit most people. Not that that will ever happen.

No, but I might point out usability features on the P+S cameras which are far superior to MFDBs, when an MFDB owner went "OMG! The new Aptus back has GreatFeature! Aptus backs have the best, most easily used, configurable interface for everyday use for anybody, why didnt ANYONE think of this before?"

Then it might be relevant to point out that P+S cameras had that (and other features) for the past ten years or so, might it not?

As I said, if debating use of studio cameras, pointing out say the pocketability of a P+S is not relevant.
Though it almost goes without saying that a P+S will have some other features that MFDSLRs should have, like say a decent screen.

[jjj]

I've been using Bridge since it was available, but I use LR2 now. The bridge options don't work for me. Do I need to install them in bridge? You do have a good point in that Bridge can do the contact sheets while I work in PS, which is an improvement. However, there is no reason to have Bridge open when I use LR. And Bridge is only a file browser, not a database. LR's search and tagging function is far superior to anything you can do in Bridge. Not only that but I can take just the catalog from LR and work on the images that are NOT EVEN ON THE DRIVE I'M WORKING ON, such as a laptop while traveling. Synchronize it with the drive the images are on, and they update automatically--the adjustments. Bridge CS4 is an improvement though for sure.

The important thing to remember is that LR and Bridge that they have different strengths. 'Only a File Browser' misses the point that a file browser is much better than a database in some situations and obviously vice versa.  By using each programme where each is better than the other, you end up with a better workflow.  You need to spend time learning them both to realise when best to use them for your needs.

When testing Bridge CS4 [before LR2 came out], I simply stopped using LR altogether as Bridge was simply so much faster [and it had ACR 5 as well]. Once LR2 came out, I reverted to using both again, but still favour Bridge a little, particularly as LR is still much slower for rendering.
Bridge is quite clever at searching, it also does keywords too and it's Sort panel is way better the the clumsy copy that appeared in LR recently.
You can batch images into PS too for things like running actions, not possible with LR.

If you equate Bridge with weedy file browsers like Explorer or Finder, you are missing out on how very good it is.

[dwdallam]

The important thing to remember is that LR and Bridge that they have different strengths. 'Only a File Browser' misses the point that a file browser is much better than a database in some situations and obviously vice versa.  By using each programme where each is better than the other, you end up with a better workflow.  You need to spend time learning them both to realise when best to use them for your needs.

When testing Bridge CS4 [before LR2 came out], I simply stopped using LR altogether as Bridge was simply so much faster [and it had ACR 5 as well]. Once LR2 came out, I reverted to using both again, but still favour Bridge a little, particularly as LR is still much slower for rendering.
Bridge is quite clever at searching, it also does keywords too and it's Sort panel is way better the the clumsy copy that appeared in LR recently.
You can batch images into PS too for things like running actions, not possible with LR.

If you equate Bridge with weedy file browsers like Explorer or Finder, you are missing out on how very good it is.

I agree with you on most of this. LR is painfully slow at rendering. The Sort options in Bridge are much easier to use and LR's sorts are like you say clunky. I don't "equate" Bridge with file browsers, but Bridge is a file browser based image manipulator. LR is a database based image manipulator. If Bridge had LR's workspace, I'd probably use Bridge exclusively. Still LR does offer some nice extras that Bridge doesn't have, such as painting tools for exposure, that I use. Having to open ACR each time to adjust an image, and not having two up capabilities is clunky compared to LR. It would be be nice if we could get ONE program with two options: Browser or database modes. I'm still not understanding how to use picture packager or Contact Sheet II in Bridge.

[jani]

I considered this for quite a while and still cannot see why I would ever do what you suggest. I think this is where a video screen grab is needed as sometimes these things can make far more sense when viewed in action.

I don't really know how to go about that, sorry.

This idea may work fine for you, but it just seems unecessary, I would simply tile the two images.

This may work for you, but ...

The fact that one is background and one foreground is irrelevant.

It's hardly irrelevant in GUIs where activating an image means that you have to pop it to the front, hiding whatever was in the other window.

You also said 'both [images] cannot be displayed at same time' How would you have this issue? As that sounds like a programme isue and not anOS issue.

Not having infinite screen real estate leads to this issue.

Granted, it's less of an issue with MacOS X since I started using a screen with 1920x1200 pixels of real estate. Plus, MacOS X has the nifty F9 and F10 shortcuts for providing an overview and easily selecting other application windows.

It's still Alt+Tab actually.

What you list below this is nothing new to me. Like I tried to tell earlier, I've been using Windows since it became publicly available. I'm not a newbie, okay?

I just found it clumsy and cumbersome, because I've also used something that's quicker and easier to use.

I can see how someone who hasn't used something quicker and easier, or who doesn't care about those things, may think that the standard solution in e.g. Windows XP is good enough.

Enough good apps is the right number.    Just Adobe software would suit most people. Not that that will ever happen.

LightZone, Bibble, jAlbum, Inkscape, Audacity, Evolution, Xfig, xv, ... it's a pretty long list of good apps, most of them are Unix/X specific rather than Linux specific and may work on a Mac as well, some are cross-platform and work even on Windows. Some are amazingly good, but won't work under anything but X, which means that the market impact is low.

But you're right in that you won't get Microsoft Office or Adobe Creative Suite applications without quite some hassle. Some products that were pretty decent have been killed off, such as FrameMaker.

You win some, you lose some, and that's how it goes for most OS-es.

You might say that's why we've got VMWare, Parallels etc.

Anyway, it's been pretty clear to me for the past few posts that we're not on the same planet, so I'll stop whipping the dead horse now.

[jjj]

Anyway, it's been pretty clear to me for the past few posts that we're not on the same planet, so I'll stop whipping the dead horse now.

So what 's it like on Pluto? Didn't realise they had dial up!

[dwdallam]

Anyway, it's been pretty clear to me for the past few posts that we're not on the same planet, so I'll stop whipping the dead horse now.

What OS are you using?

[Ray]

XP Pro x64 edition seems to have been a hidden customer beta.

I've recently downloaded the trial version of CS4. In the Programs menu where I open programs, there's an option of Adobe Photoshop CS4, or Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64 bit). Since I have a Win XP 64bit OS, I ckick on Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64 bit). It seems faster than Cs3.

[dwdallam]

I've recently downloaded the trial version of CS4. In the Programs menu where I open programs, there's an option of Adobe Photoshop CS4, or Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64 bit). Since I have a Win XP 64bit OS, I ckick on Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64 bit). It seems faster than Cs3.

If you mean opening, opening files, and general crispness, it is in my opinion too.

[DiaAzul]

I have roughly the same system on order, though with Core i7 rather than Q9550. Just tried your speed test on my current computer and beginning to think that an upgrade isn't going to be worthwhile ;-)   Took 4min15 for CS3 and 3min5 for CS4  

For feedback to those who are interested. I just ran the speed test on the new system (Core i7 2.66GHz) with 6Gb of RAM which gives a result of around 17 seconds and the spin test which was 7.3 seconds -- comparable with a 3.4GHz 4-core system. The top of the range i7 (3.2GHz) should do the speed test in about 13 seconds or less.

I guess Apple will be updating their desktops soon.

[Sheldon N]

For feedback to those who are interested. I just ran the speed test on the new system (Core i7 2.66GHz) with 6Gb of RAM which gives a result of around 17 seconds and the spin test which was 7.3 seconds -- comparable with a 3.4GHz 4-core system. The top of the range i7 (3.2GHz) should do the speed test in about 13 seconds or less.

I guess Apple will be updating their desktops soon.

That's very snappy indeed!  Have you looked into overclocking it? From the little bit that I've read, the i7 920 will easily overclock to the mid 3 GHz range if you have a decent CPU cooling fan/heatsink.

No need to spend a huge amount of $$ for the next processor up, just dial things in for what you have now.

[dwdallam]

That's very snappy indeed!  Have you looked into overclocking it? From the little bit that I've read, the i7 920 will easily overclock to the mid 3 GHz range if you have a decent CPU cooling fan/heatsink.

No need to spend a huge amount of $$ for the next processor up, just dial things in for what you have now.

This is absolutely true. I just bought a Vendetta 2 fan and heatsink for my AMD 4800 64 and I'm getting 3Ghz out of "her" now at under 65C on full load. That's up from 2.4Ghz stock clock. But I've been looking at the i7s.  They clock really well.

If you are interested in OCing, I'd use this forum:

Hard OCP --jsut google it.

Then download these three programs, and don't ask, jsut do it becaue you will sooner or later anyway if you decide to OC. You can't get around it:

Temperature of your CPU Cores as determined by the ON DIE heat sensor.
http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

Allows you to see what your bus speeds, CPU clock, RAM speeds & timings, and other relevant information:
http://www.cpuid.com/

Orthos: This is a CPU/RAM stress program. It will MELT your CPU if you don't cool it properly, so be careful. Most modern CPUs will just shut down if they get too hot, but you've been warned. It's main purpose for living is that it stresses your RAM and CPU in the OCed configuration to see if either spit out any errors, which means you need to give it more power, which means it heats up to a higher level. This is absolutely the best program out there for this purpose.
http://sp2004.fre3.com/

Finally, this program can be downloaded to replace both CPUZ and Core temp, but I use all three:
http://www.lavalys.com/
Program is called: EVEREST

This program is not free, but you can run it as long as you want, and all of the stuff you need is allowed on the shareware version. It shows CPU fan speeds, chassis speeds, and CPU temps, among much more, all in one program, and it's sensor reading are the "real" deal, like Core Temp and CPUZ, that is, from the on die digital sensor. This is a very nice program. Everything on your computer is displayed in one easy location window, including all system hardware information, DX10 version, and all graphics elements, hardware configs, system installed software, drivers, everything. You have to scratch your head in wonder why it is that MS cannot do this. This is the way system monitoring  and configurations SHOULD be done.

[jing q]

btw, something I never noticed for awhile until I pushed down the mouse scroll button by accident...the application windows pop up as thumbnails and you can select which application you want to jump to with the mouse.
Also, Alt+Tab is a very elegant and simple solution, it speeds through the programs just by holding down the Tab key


I think alot of the drama here is that the different OS have different working methods and workflows to achieve similar results.
I personally much prefer XP even though I have a MBP for my Leaf software. I find it extremely customizable, whereas I feel locked down by the Mac OS.
There must be an easier way to be able to close the Macbook Pro screen without it going into hibernation.
I like how barebones XP is, no fancy transitions, nothing too organic and round (yes I actually like my sharp edged digital looking fonts and menu bars, I like them 2D not 3D)

I considered this for quite a while and still cannot see why I would ever do what you suggest. I think this is where a video screen grab is needed as sometimes these things can make far more sense when viewed in action.
This idea may work fine for you, but it just seems unecessary, I would simply tile the two images. The fact that one is background and one foreground is irrelevant. You also said 'both [images] cannot be displayed at same time' How would you have this issue? As that sounds like a programme isue and not anOS issue.


It's still Alt+Tab actually.
Do it quickly and you simply switch to last app, that's the one I use the most.
Alt+Tab and if you don't release Tab, you cycle through the apps. Let go when it hits whatever you want, how simple is that?
Alt+ repeated Tab to step cycle through is also so easy, I certainly wouldn't want to use a mouse to select the icon. Plus it isn't really a good option if using mouse left handed, as I do.
Alt+Shft+Tab does it backwards. Cntr+ Tab cyles through document and shift is also modifer for opposite way there too. Though Apps aren't too consisentent about this, Firefox does it really clumsily when moving through tabs and Opera does it well.