Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #37955 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-02 15:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-05 08:29 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 74 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps
Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) - 2017-04-02 15:04 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-02 18:13 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) - 2017-04-03 19:56 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-03 23:01 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-04 03:43 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-04-04 00:23 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-04 15:44 +1100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 16:25 -0500
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-04 17:26 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-04 23:46 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 17:25 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 17:28 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-05 00:52 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-05 13:35 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 14:49 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-06 11:12 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 15:28 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-06 11:43 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 16:13 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-06 12:48 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 19:11 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-07 09:51 +1100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-05 10:53 +1100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 18:55 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-05 12:59 +1100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 20:28 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-06 07:00 +1100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-05 14:22 -0700
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-06 09:37 +1100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-06 11:36 +0100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2017-04-04 13:07 +0100
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-04 11:03 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 16:39 -0500
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-04 18:05 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-04 15:20 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-04 17:56 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-04-02 20:53 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-04-03 02:34 +0000
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-03 17:47 -0400
Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-03 18:05 -0400
Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 18:32 +0100
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-04 15:13 -0300
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 19:30 +0100
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) FrozenNorth <frozennorth.ask@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:11 -0400
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 20:33 +0100
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) FrozenNorth <frozennorth.ask@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:51 -0400
Re: [OT] Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-04 18:53 -0300
Re: [OT] Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-05 10:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-05 08:40 -0300
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-04 15:49 -0400
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-04 17:41 -0400
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-05 10:10 +0100
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 07:00 -0400
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 07:05 -0400
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-05 12:15 +0100
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-05 09:06 -0300
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 16:14 -0400
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-19 15:54 +0100
Re: [OT]David Brooks - CYBERCRIMINAL Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-19 12:30 -0300
Re: [OT]David Brooks - CYBERCRIMINAL Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-19 14:35 -0300
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-05-19 18:56 -0400
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-20 08:08 +0100
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-20 08:13 +0100
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2017-05-20 14:00 +0000
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-20 12:43 -0300
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-20 17:29 +0100
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-20 22:00 -0300
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-05-21 08:34 -0400
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2017-05-21 13:04 +0000
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Mike_Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2017-05-20 18:21 -0400
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2017-05-21 13:04 +0000
Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-05-21 11:51 -0400
Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 08:29 -0400
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 15:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime |
| Message-ID | <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid> |
Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop CS4, I get the message, "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java SE 6 runtime." Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce security on my Mac? TIA, Ron -- _____________________________ Ron, the humblest guy in town
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 18:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020420171813390789%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #37955 |
In article <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, Ron <RonTheGuy@null.invalid> wrote: > Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop > CS4, it's long overdue to upgrade. > I get the message, > "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java > SE 6 runtime." > Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps no. > or reduce > security on my Mac? it's java, and an old version at that, so yes. photoshop does not use java (it's an apple bug that won't ever be fixed), so it's possible to spoof the check, however, you now have to disable sip to do so and keep reapplying the fix every time you update sierra, making it not a viable option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1n3x8nr.2o3ekl1jn7h8iN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid> |
| In reply to | #37956 |
Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't like the subscription model... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, Ron > <RonTheGuy@null.invalid> wrote: > > > Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop > > CS4, > > it's long overdue to upgrade. > > > I get the message, > > "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java > > SE 6 runtime." > > Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps > > no. > > > or reduce > > security on my Mac? > > it's java, and an old version at that, so yes. > > photoshop does not use java (it's an apple bug that won't ever be > fixed), so it's possible to spoof the check, however, you now have to > disable sip to do so and keep reapplying the fix every time you update > sierra, making it not a viable option. -- _____________________________ Ron, the humblest guy in town
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <030420172301217452%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #37968 |
In article <1n3x8nr.2o3ekl1jn7h8iN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, Ron <RonTheGuy@null.invalid> wrote: > Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't > like the subscription model... then get photoshop elements, which likely does more than you need, particularly if you're still using cs4.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 03:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ekgj3hF7pokU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37969 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1n3x8nr.2o3ekl1jn7h8iN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, Ron > <RonTheGuy@null.invalid> wrote: > >> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't >> like the subscription model... > > then get photoshop elements, which likely does more than you need, > particularly if you're still using cs4. Or Affinity Photo, or Pixelmator, assuming the feature set matches your needs. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 00:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <040420170023392529%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #37968 |
Ron: > Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't > like the subscription model... That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model for world-class graphics software. $9.99 per month for Lightroom and Photoshop is a no-brainer for me. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 15:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-11E70F.15440704042017@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com> |
| In reply to | #37971 |
In article <040420170023392529%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > $9.99 per month for Lightroom and > Photoshop is a no-brainer for me. This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 16:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37972 |
dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > In article <040420170023392529%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> > wrote: > >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me. > > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team. > I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer. If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator. -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 17:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <040420171726205125%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #37988 |
In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> >
> > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
> > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>
> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
more than adequate.
plenty of options.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ekiphtFldn3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37989 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>
>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>
>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>
> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
> more than adequate.
>
> plenty of options.
Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2017040417252610672-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #37996 |
On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>>
>>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>>
>> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
>> more than adequate.
>>
>> plenty of options.
>
> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
There is another added benefit to several of these, Luminar, Exposure
X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 also install as plugins for PS, PSE, and LR.
Pixelmator, Affinity Photos, and some On1 Develop features install as
Photos extensions.
<https://macphun.com/luminar>
<https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/>
<http://www.pixelmator.com>
<https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/>
<https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/>
BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2017040417281940194-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #37997 |
On 2017-04-05 00:25:26 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
> On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
>
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>>>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>>>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>>>
>>> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
>>> more than adequate.
>>>
>>> plenty of options.
>>
>> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
>> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
>> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
I meant to add;
These days there are plenty of very good non-subscription, standalone
photo editing/processing apps available, some OSX exclusive, and some
cross platform OSX/Win. Along with the above mentioned PS Elements,
Luminar, Affinity Photo, and Pixelmator, there are also Alienskin
Exposure X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017.
> There is another added benefit to several of these, Luminar, Exposure
> X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 also install as plugins for PS, PSE, and LR.
>
> Pixelmator, Affinity Photos, and some On1 Develop features install as
> Photos extensions.
>
> <https://macphun.com/luminar>
> <https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/>
> <http://www.pixelmator.com>
> <https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/>
> <https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/>
>
> BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 00:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ekitepFm0plU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37997 |
On 2017-04-05, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
>
>> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
>> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
>> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
>
> There is another added benefit to several of these, Luminar, Exposure
> X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 also install as plugins for PS, PSE, and LR.
>
> Pixelmator, Affinity Photos, and some On1 Develop features install as
> Photos extensions.
Good point. I own Affinity Photo and Pixelmator. Both are great for the
majority of my graphics needs.
><https://macphun.com/luminar>
><https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/>
><http://www.pixelmator.com>
><https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/>
><https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/>
Thanks for the other recommendations. I think it's great that there are
so many viable choices these days!
> BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 13:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <050420171335581149%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #37999 |
In article <ekitepFm0plU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the > > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line. > > Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is > inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis. it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point, unless they're updated to a more recent version. cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-06 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ekn2rqFgd64U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38013 |
On 2017-04-05, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ekitepFm0plU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line. >> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks > > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis. > > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point, > unless they're updated to a more recent version. That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity of software matters to some people for some use cases. > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years. Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-06 11:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060420171112174610%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #38019 |
In article <ekn2rqFgd64U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > > >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the > >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line. > >> > >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is > >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks > > > > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis. > > > > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point, > > unless they're updated to a more recent version. > > That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop > CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will > drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the > future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older > versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that > software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity > of software matters to some people for some use cases. i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the one you're currently using. you can also keep an older version. > > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years. > > Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast. only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-06 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ekn557Fgd64U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38020 |
On 2017-04-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ekn2rqFgd64U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the >> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line. >> >> >> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is >> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks >> > >> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis. >> > >> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point, >> > unless they're updated to a more recent version. >> >> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop >> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will >> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the >> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older >> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that >> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity >> of software matters to some people for some use cases. > > i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the > one you're currently using. > > you can also keep an older version. Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working because Adobe's moved on though. >> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years. >> >> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast. > > only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running. The point is if nothing on the system is changed, some people want the software on that system to run indefinitely without continual payments and without connecting to remote subscription servers. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-06 11:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060420171143598671%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #38021 |
In article <ekn557Fgd64U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to > >> >> > the > >> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line. > >> >> > >> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is > >> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks > >> > > >> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis. > >> > > >> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point, > >> > unless they're updated to a more recent version. > >> > >> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop > >> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will > >> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the > >> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older > >> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that > >> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity > >> of software matters to some people for some use cases. > > > > i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the > > one you're currently using. > > > > you can also keep an older version. > > Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working > because Adobe's moved on though. yes it will. > >> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years. > >> > >> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast. > > > > only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running. > > The point is if nothing on the system is changed, some people want the > software on that system to run indefinitely without continual payments > and without connecting to remote subscription servers. others want the new features in newer versions. for those that keep using an older version on older hardware, at some point, that hardware will stop working and they'll be forced to upgrade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-06 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ekn7psFheufU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38022 |
On 2017-04-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ekn557Fgd64U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of >>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some >>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware. >>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops >>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops >>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop >>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software >>>> matters to some people for some use cases. >>> >>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than >>> the one you're currently using. >>> >>> you can also keep an older version. >> >> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working >> because Adobe's moved on though. > > yes it will. How will it continue to work if it cannot contact subscription servers? [remaining argumentative tripe omitted] -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-06 12:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060420171248019951%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #38023 |
In article <ekn7psFheufU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of > >>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some > >>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware. > >>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops > >>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops > >>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop > >>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software > >>>> matters to some people for some use cases. > >>> > >>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than > >>> the one you're currently using. > >>> > >>> you can also keep an older version. > >> > >> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working > >> because Adobe's moved on though. > > > > yes it will. > > How will it continue to work if it cannot contact subscription servers? older versions can ping the servers the same as newer versions. it's just checking for a paid account.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps
csiph-web