On Sun, 6 May 2007 08:42:28 -0400, "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com>
wrote:
>------
>
>As far as I can tell, none of your issues have ANYTHING to do with
>Vista. They appear to be issues with software vendors that are
>unprepared for Vista, which is absolutely ridiculous given the lead
>time.
>
>I keep seeing posts about Adobe requiring the new version, but never get
>a reply. Photoshop CS2 runs fine in Vista. Why would I be forced to
>CS3?
>
>Tom
Right Tom, none of the issues have anything to do with Vista. Thus my
post about Vista is NOT the bleeding edge. That was my whole point.
Because I was talking about Vista, I added other relevant information
about it.
>>Guess it doesn't seem to exciting to me. Some do, some don't. Looks
>>like the current release and at least one back works on almost all the
>>products (can't say I checked them all). The majors (PS, InDesign)
>>etc., all seem to work in CS2, which has been out for a couple years.
>>
>>Their position, which is reasonable, is that their 'certified' releases
>>are the current ones, including CS3. Again, reasonable.
>>
>>What would you have them do? Give free upgrades to everyone? It's not
>>like everyone is going to vista at light speed.
>
>
>Nothing because I do NOT care. Upgrades for free, sure if that makes
>Adobe happy. Agreed, not all are rushing into Vista (like myself).
>
>I only offered my post as information. I could care less whether
>Adobe works or doesn't work with Vista. I just thought between you
>and Journey, this information might settle your difference of opinion.
>Last, don't get me started on Licenses as you don't want to go there.
It's interesting -- Tom and I didn't disagree but he thinks that I
did. Maybe he got confused when I said it is NOT the bleeding edge.
It's not the "leading edge" because I define leading in terms of a
platform to be the one to run the most software. Right now XP leads
in that because there is a lot of software out there that is not Vista
tested or compatible.
Both XP and Vista run programs. XP leads in that (leading edge), and
Vista is NOT as I said the bleeding edge, because it runs most
software and exceeds my expectations as to where it is at this point
of its release.
I agree with you RnR, I'm not sure what the drama or excitement is
about -- just stating opinions, and interestingly, mine agreed with
Tom's even though he interpreted it in some other way.
On Sun, 6 May 2007 13:51:34 -0400, "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Not really a difference of opinion. I just see the 'Adobe doesn't work
>on Vista' posts everywhere, not just this forum. I don't know why
>people are picking on Adobe, but it just is not fact.
I have seen many web articles discussing the fact that Adobe Photoshop
and other products are not Vista certified and that Adobe made the
decision to put resources into making the new CS3 update (which
customers have to pay money for) their Vista certified product.
I have seen the same about several other companies' products.
You see "Adobe doesn't work on Vista" posts everywhere because that is
what is reported. I usually believe things I read in multiple places.
I don't have a copy of Photoshop CS2 to test on Vista, so I believe
what I read, which includes information from Adobe itself.
>I don't know Tom but perhaps it's a testimony to the popularity of
>Adobe products? And as far as I can tell in regard to CS2, I
>interpret Adobe's own words "Installs and runs with minimal known
>issues" as meaning it is WRONG to say it won't run under Vista.
>I guess what I'm saying NOW is that I agree with you tho I don't
>really care either way.
I also couldn't care less either way, but it seems that Tom is
emotionally invested in this. Adobe's words that it "Installs and
runs with minimum known issues" may be more recent wording or
reporting than earlier articles and prior to more recent testing at
Adobe.
The sentiment of my original post holds: Vista is NOT the bleeding
edge (for me).
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:30:58 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 May 2007 14:25:58 -0500, RnR wrote:
>
>>I don't know Tom but perhaps it's a testimony to the popularity of
>>Adobe products? And as far as I can tell in regard to CS2, I
>>interpret Adobe's own words "Installs and runs with minimal known
>>issues" as meaning it is WRONG to say it won't run under Vista.
>>I guess what I'm saying NOW is that I agree with you tho I don't
>>really care either way.
>
>I also couldn't care less either way, but it seems that Tom is
>emotionally invested in this.
Yes Journey, I also thought the same thing and was a bit surprised how
he reacted. Oh well, some can say the same for me too regarding
English and software licenses <grin>.
-----Original Message-----
From: RnR [mailto:RnR]
Posted At: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:05 AM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Vista: Not the Bleeding Edge
Subject: Re: Vista: Not the Bleeding Edge
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:30:58 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 May 2007 14:25:58 -0500, RnR wrote:
>
>>I don't know Tom but perhaps it's a testimony to the popularity of
>>Adobe products? And as far as I can tell in regard to CS2, I
>>interpret Adobe's own words "Installs and runs with minimal known
>>issues" as meaning it is WRONG to say it won't run under Vista.
>>I guess what I'm saying NOW is that I agree with you tho I don't
>>really care either way.
>
>I also couldn't care less either way, but it seems that Tom is
>emotionally invested in this.
Yes Journey, I also thought the same thing and was a bit surprised how
he reacted. Oh well, some can say the same for me too regarding
English and software licenses <grin>.
-----
In what way did I respond poorly? I'm surprised you're making this
personal. I merely challenged a piece of misinformation that I have seen
all over that Photoshop CS2 does not work properly under Vista.
Heck, my Logitech Webcam does not have drivers and when you install the
XP software you get warnings from both the Logitech software and from
Vista that it will not work and you have to buy a new camera.
Surprise, surprise. Works just fine.
Should I just stop posting? I appear to be causing problems here. Or is
just a remnant of our disagreement on licensing.
On Mon, 7 May 2007 07:41:00 -0400, "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com>
wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: RnR [mailto:RnR]
>Posted At: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:05 AM
>Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
>Conversation: Vista: Not the Bleeding Edge
>Subject: Re: Vista: Not the Bleeding Edge
>
>On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:30:58 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2007 14:25:58 -0500, RnR wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know Tom but perhaps it's a testimony to the popularity of
>>>Adobe products? And as far as I can tell in regard to CS2, I
>>>interpret Adobe's own words "Installs and runs with minimal known
>>>issues" as meaning it is WRONG to say it won't run under Vista.
>>>I guess what I'm saying NOW is that I agree with you tho I don't
>>>really care either way.
>>
>>I also couldn't care less either way, but it seems that Tom is
>>emotionally invested in this.
>
>
>Yes Journey, I also thought the same thing and was a bit surprised how
>he reacted. Oh well, some can say the same for me too regarding
>English and software licenses <grin>.
>
>-----
>
>In what way did I respond poorly? I'm surprised you're making this
>personal. I merely challenged a piece of misinformation that I have seen
>all over that Photoshop CS2 does not work properly under Vista.
>
>Heck, my Logitech Webcam does not have drivers and when you install the
>XP software you get warnings from both the Logitech software and from
>Vista that it will not work and you have to buy a new camera.
>
>Surprise, surprise. Works just fine.
>
>
>
>Should I just stop posting? I appear to be causing problems here. Or is
>just a remnant of our disagreement on licensing.
>
>Tom
The short answer is NO.
Tom, it's NOTHING personal. Apparently Journey and I just thought you
were reacting a bit more than we anticipated for the subject matter at
hand. And if you think we are wrong, just ignor the post.
Honestly I don't hold any grudge on you regarding licensing and
speaking for myself have NO ill feelings toward you at all. In my
opinion, you or anyone has the right to disagree with me but I hope it
never becomes personal.
>The short answer is NO.
>
>Tom, it's NOTHING personal. Apparently Journey and I just thought you
>were reacting a bit more than we anticipated for the subject matter at
>hand. And if you think we are wrong, just ignor the post.
>
>Honestly I don't hold any grudge on you regarding licensing and
>speaking for myself have NO ill feelings toward you at all. In my
>opinion, you or anyone has the right to disagree with me but I hope it
>never becomes personal.
I agree with RnR.
And, especially in past postings (which I think / hope I have improved
upon) I was very off-topic, political, and rambling.
So, no -- I just thought you were a little strong in your response so
responded to that.
I agree with you Tom that Vista is more stable and "prime time" than a
lot of people think. Your info. about Adobe products is probably more
recent, or from more informed personal experience) than the many web
articles posted previously about the "incompatibilities".
Anyway posting isn't a perfect art as I well know, especially for
frequent posters.
And, I am a bit on the sensitive side so I will try to have a tougher
skin.
Re: Vista: Not the Bleeding Edge 
Linear Mode
