 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:27:17 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>>> March 22 if you're planning to be in The Jack Horner (Tottenham Court Road)
>>> on that day :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh! that is a Saturday and I'll be home for the weekend. (I'm starting a new job
>> next week.) So you are a Modulo day older than me as mine is on the 23rd. of
>> March. And Tottenham Court Road is close to "Forbidden Planet" I'd love to meet
>> up.
>Ok, lets go for it. Set a time and I'll be there.
>Anyone else up for a meet?
I've not been for a drink there but it looks like a good location. Easy to get
to from Euston, Kings Cross or Liverpool St. (For the out of towners :) As for a
time, I'm easy and it is only about a half and hour from my home by the bendy
bus #18.
Do you want to wait to see if anyone else will join us before setting a time?
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> As I recall from when I actually used PSP, version 8 was the best in
>> the series. It started going downhill when Corel stepped in.
>
> I used V8 for a long time at work, and V9 at home. I just recently got
> the latest Pro Photo X2 from Corel ... and really, I don't see any big
> differences, apart from nicer eye candy. The functionality is still all
> there, the menus are almost identical, a few additional tools and better
> designed older tools, but essentially 95% the same program.
>
> So I'd agree with Gail and Warp, go get a cheap copy of PSP 8 or 9 and
> give that a whirl - it has most of the features that a non-Pro uses in
> Photoshop anyway.
Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook escribió:
> Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:05:08 -0500, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
I just checked and I'm using Version 6
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Tim Cook escribió:
>> Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
>
> http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
>
> I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
everything rather poorly.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
> interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
> everything rather poorly.
In a graphical user interface it's more difficult to make them
interoperate, which is probably one reason why they usually don't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
>> interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
>> everything rather poorly.
>
> In a graphical user interface it's more difficult to make them
> interoperate, which is probably one reason why they usually don't.
And also one reason why command-line tools are better for many things.
(image editing probably not one of them)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> > In a graphical user interface it's more difficult to make them
> > interoperate, which is probably one reason why they usually don't.
> And also one reason why command-line tools are better for many things.
True, although I have to admit that sometimes a graphical user interface
just makes some things easier, faster and more practical (although not so
many things as many people seem to believe.)
> (image editing probably not one of them)
Basically anything involving heavy amounts of multimedia.
(Playing video/music files may be a borderline case, though. For example
mplayer is a superb command-line media player, and mencoder is a good
command-line tool for converting videos and a good "ripping" tool.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
> interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
> everything rather poorly.
See, now, personally I hate that. It annoys the hell out of me that the
Unix way is to use 50,000 tiny tools with all have far too many
backwards compatibility modes, bugs and "features".
["This makes it read from a file. Unless the file is named '-', in which
case it reads from stdin." OK, so how do I make it read from a file
that's actually named '-' then? And other surprising ad-hoc behaviours...]
But then, I guess that's just my opinion.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ["This makes it read from a file. Unless the file is named '-', in which
> case it reads from stdin." OK, so how do I make it read from a file
> that's actually named '-' then? And other surprising ad-hoc behaviours...]
./-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
