or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bikertwin

Don't worry, RazzFazz, you're not the first one who's given up arguing with melgross.
Yeah, aplnub, that's a much more likely price point. I wonder if they'd all have the rumored 13-inch widescreen monitor?
It turns out the 10.4.3 update quite literally killed my wife's machine! But then she had one of those 2003 iBooks with the logic board problem. I brought it in to an Apple store to be fixed, 3 years and a day after we bought it. Luckily, Apple acquiesed and ignored the 1-day-late problem, and we should be getting a fixed machine in a few days. Thank you, Apple. (I wonder if they even stock a 3-year-old 800 MHz G3 board?)
Ah, can you say "OS/2"? IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently. The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case. Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on...
There's no need to dual boot (which I can't imagine His Steveness would condone) if you've got virtualization technology:http://news.com.com/Intel+brings+vir...l?tag=nefd.top Run OS X as your main OS, and run Windows in a separate virtual machine. Thus any bugs/viruses/malware on your windows virtual machine won't affect OS X at all. Best of both worlds.
Person 1: "The world is round." Person 2: "I agree with you that the world might be round." Huh? That's not agreement. Anyway, nice talking to you, but 10.4.3 has killed my wife's machine. So I won't be around these parts for a while.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intermediate saves. That was always a no-no in Photoshop. Intermediate saves are not a no-no in Aperture--because they're not destructive. For some reason, you beat around the bush and refuse to acknowledge this point. Are you running for political office?
Well then it's not JPEG anymore, is it? If you go back and look at my post where I first bring up editing JPEGs in Aperture, you'll see that I was using Aperture as something that breaks the long-held truism in Photoshop: Never work with JPEGs. Always convert them to PSD or TIFF, because each time you re-save the image as a JPEG you are degrading the image. This a workflow that anyone who knows Photoshop knows not to do: 1. Open JPEG. 2. Make change (e.g. contrast,...
From what I've read, there is no such thing as "File-->Save" in Aperture. Aperture does not save modified images (unless you explicitly export them)--that's what makes it 'nondestructive editing'. Changes are saved as "instructions" (i.e., text commands) in a database. If you want other apps to see the modified images, you have to export them. This is just like iTunes and some parts of iPhoto. Metadata for songs in iTunes is not stored in the song. You can change info...
Ah, now that Aperture is on the scene, I guess my old truism needs refinement. In Photoshop or any other bitmap editor, don't use JPEGs as your master images. In Aperture, with its nondestructive editing, changes to your image are saved in a database until you explicitly export the file. So you actually could use JPEGs as masters in Aperture. There'd be no harm that I can think of off the top of my head.
New Posts  All Forums: