 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006F--- Adobe
Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious problems. That Adobe requires this (what the Hell do they care about the security quality of Windows for???) seems to smack of some kind of under the table deal with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the EU??? > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of Windows for???) seems to smack of some kind of under the table deal > with Microsoft. What the f.ck does requiring SP2 have to do with Microsoft? If you can't figure out SP2 maybe you should give up PCs and switch to Mac. Greg > > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Greg That's the big question. Why would you need SP2 to run an Adobe application? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx >>>Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. >>>I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > application? > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx It appears one needs M$ Internet Exploder to even view this link.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>>Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. >>>>I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >It appears one needs M$ Internet Exploder to even view this link. I didn't. Firefox 1.5.0.4 got me in, but there was some text that overlaid other text. When I switched to the IE mode the problem text was straightened out. Do you use Firefox? I'll assume you do, since your news client is Thunderbird, and suggest you get the IE Tab add-on. There are (far too) many sites that look right only on Internet Explorer, and I refuse to use that POS. When I encounter one now I just switch Firefox to IE mode while I'm on the offending site. Works great for this, and supposedly it works so much like IE that you can even download updates and patches from MS this way. >>>>>Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. >>>>>I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > great for this, and supposedly it works so much like IE that you can even > download updates and patches from MS this way. Yes, I do. The release notes include a comment that Tabbrowser is adversely impacted by IEview, so I'll have to be careful here. Thanks for the input. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' On 20-Jul-06 01:16:35, maxsilverstar said >>> That's the big question. Why would you need SP2 to run an Adobe >>> application? >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx >> >>It appears one needs M$ Internet Exploder to even view this link. >I didn't. Firefox 1.5.0.4 got me in, but there was some text that overlaid >other text. When I switched to the IE mode the problem text was straightened >out. My Amiga's browser (IBrowse) got me to the first link, but I was rumbled when I went to the download link. All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html According to Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>: > >>"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message [ ... ] > > That's the big question. Why would you need SP2 to run an Adobe > > application? > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx [ ... ] > It appears one needs M$ Internet Exploder to even view this link. Hmm ... I went there three times: 1) With Opera configured to masquerade as IE 6.0 -- no problems. 2) With Opera configured to identify itself as Opera -- but with JavaScript and cookies enabled. -- No problems. 3) With Opera configured to identify itself as Opera -- and with JavaScript and cookies disabled. -- *Still* no problems/ What browser (and OS platform) were *you* using? Since I'm doing it from Sun Workstations using Solaris, there is no chance of me ever running IE on them. :-) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx > > It appears one needs M$ Internet Exploder to even view this link. Works fine on Safari. Maybe you need a Mac to view the link. :-) >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx > > It appears one needs M$ Internet Exploder to even view this link. Why? It works almost perfectly using Mozilla Firefox (formatting is just a little off). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the > EU??? Oh, did you finally get a camera? Just about any Windows software these days requires SP2. If you're having problems with it, it's likely the problem lies with your computer/Windows installation - not with SP2. >>Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. >>I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > having problems with it, it's likely the problem lies with your > computer/Windows installation - not with SP2. I work at a computer store. I've upgraded hundreds of computers to SP2, and very rarely have a problem. > Oh, did you finally get a camera? > > Just about any Windows software these days requires SP2. If you're > having problems with it, it's likely the problem lies with your > computer/Windows installation - not with SP2. I had some older ThinkPads that would not run SP2. IBM service reps for several months were telling customers not to install SP2. But both of our current ThinkPads (3 years old) run SP2 just fine. And I have not had any problems with anything newer. SP2 ran just fine in Virtual PC on my PowerBook, too -- though I eventually removed Virtual PC because it was just easier to borrow Jane's ThinkPad if I needed to do PC things. I suspect that most SP2 problems are with obsolete equipment. You know what? I bet Adobe Lightroom won't run on my old IBM XT, either. Heck, it only had a 10Mb hard drive. >> Oh, did you finally get a camera? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > what? I bet Adobe Lightroom won't run on my old IBM XT, either. Heck, > it only had a 10Mb hard drive. I have a ThinkPad running SP2 no problem. Most of the problems Microsoft had were with upgrades to SP1. I do a lot of SP2 upgrades with no problems, but you do have to disable your antivirus when you load it, and stuff like that. Microsoft will no longer support versions of XP that have not been upgraded, and most of the problems associated with the SP2 upgrade are well known by Microsoft. Check their Web site. > Oh, did you finally get a camera? > > Just about any Windows software these days requires SP2. If you're > having problems with it, it's likely the problem lies with your > computer/Windows installation - not with SP2. That's a very good point B. "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in news:1153346094.190941.292170 @p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the > EU??? I couldn't agree with your opinion more. F--- Adobe. Signatureset email=jim.n.pam@ix.netcom.com set email=%email:.n.=n% ---------------------------------- Life is short, hire a lawn service ---------------------------------- > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious > problems. Then perhaps you should go into another line of work, clearly computer support is not your forte. > That Adobe requires this (what the Hell do they care about the security > quality > of Windows for???) seems to smack of some kind of under the table deal > with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the > EU??? Yeah, Microsoft sure makes a lot of bucks off of those free patches. Geez. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Yeah, Microsoft sure makes a lot of bucks off of those free patches. > Geez. probably because SP2 will refuse to install on some pirated copied of Windows XP . Surely OP is not running pirated software. B. >> Yeah, Microsoft sure makes a lot of bucks off of those free patches. >> Geez. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > B. This is the most likely issue going forward. The days of running a pirated Windows AND receiving free updates directly from M$ are over. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> probably because SP2 will refuse to install on some pirated copied of >> Windows XP. Surely OP is not running pirated software. > > This is the most likely issue going forward. The days of running a > pirated Windows AND receiving free updates directly from M$ are over. Actually, it is absolutely no problem to create a SP2 installation CD, if you have a working installation CD without SP or with SP1 - google for 'SP2 slipstream'. I did this with two legal XP copies - as a bonus I got a working backup copy of the notebook vendor's Windows CD that originally got some silly copy-protection on it ;) - I normally always backup any CD and use the copy for installation, here it failed. I heard that it works with illegal too. Anyway, there are indeed valid concerns with SP2 - a company I work for actually installed SP2 long after it was released because of some real incompatibility they needed to sort out first. To _require_ a SP2 is normally an attempt to discard one unknown variable when dealing with future problems. Although the Windows SP level normally does not matter much, it might... - if the developers and the test environment have SP2, they want the customer to have it too. I work as a software developer and we e.g. require the SP1 of .NET framework because of one really obscure bug we've fallen into. Not checking for the .NET SP version would mean unreliable software at such customers. So I kind of understand what Adobe is doing here. SignatureStano > > That Adobe requires this (what the Hell do they care about the security > > quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah, Microsoft sure makes a lot of bucks off of those free patches. Geez. And Adobe sure makes a lot of bucks off of those free public betas. And they cover their conspiracy so well with some six months of a Mac-only release. The unsuspecting public will never know what hit them! Will > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious > problems. Didn't pay for Windows XP? :-) Their new Genuine license checking is a nuisance isn't it ;-) Honestly though, I have found SP2 to be much better than anything they previously had. The ONLY drawback that I have seen is that startup is long again (windows 2003 server starts very quickly). I suspect Microsoft is slowing down the OS with more and more patches so that you are so inclined to upgrade to Vista to get better performance. > That Adobe requires this (what the Hell do they care about the security > quality > of Windows for???) seems to smack of some kind of under the table deal > with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the > EU??? Adobe is relying upon some feature in SP2 that doesn't exist in previous versions. Perhaps it is DirectX related. Why don't you email Adobe and ask about it .. they might just tell you why. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the > EU??? Your ignorance is clearly and glaringly limelighted, **yet** again. You would do yourself a kindness to stop posting entirely. SNIP > Your ignorance is clearly and glaringly limelighted, **yet** again. > You would do yourself a kindness to stop posting entirely. "Hit me, hit me hard" said the masochist. "Nooo", said the sadist with a big smile ... SignatureBart (who is neither) > > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. > > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Your ignorance is clearly and glaringly limelighted, **yet** again. > You would do yourself a kindness to stop posting entirely. "click, whirrr...." "I-I-I ammmm and Adobe whore" "I will do as Adobe tells me" "Ex-ter-min-ate!" >> Your ignorance is clearly and glaringly limelighted, **yet** again. >> You would do yourself a kindness to stop posting entirely. > > "click, whirrr...." "I-I-I ammmm and Adobe whore" > "I will do as Adobe tells me" > "Ex-ter-min-ate!" No, you grotesque turd. Your ignorance concerns your lack of understanding of what SP2 is. I'm no fan of Adobe, and I'm particularly uninterested in their Lightroom - or any form of Adobe RAW conversion for that matter. > >> Your ignorance is clearly and glaringly limelighted, **yet** again. > >> You would do yourself a kindness to stop posting entirely. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm no fan of Adobe, and I'm particularly uninterested in their Lightroom - > or any form of Adobe RAW conversion for that matter. Uh huh. A Service Pack (more commonly, SP) is a software program that corrects known bugs, problems, or adds new features. Companies that produce large applications such as Microsoft and their Windows NT-based operating systems typically release a service pack when the number of individual patches to the application becomes too large. RichA wrote (in article <1153346094.190941.292170@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>): > Lightroom's beta for Windows requires SP2 to work. And rightfully so, not running SP2 is like jumping a barbed wire fence with your pants down. > I've installed SP2 on three occasions and each time ran into serious > problems. Hire someone that is competent and let them help you. > That Adobe requires this (what the Hell do they care about the security > quality > of Windows for???) seems to smack of some kind of under the table deal > with Microsoft. Is Microsoft angling for another $500M fine from the > EU??? SP2 is not solely comprised of security updates. Plus, when you are releasing a new product, particularly while it is in beta, do you really want to support a bunch of legacy crap that reasonable people don't run anymore? SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.