Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Elements 3.0, I can't believe they offered a demo

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 8, 2005 12:52:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.

Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.

Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
hurried home from work to test it.

On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
wanted from Adobe.

The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.

Just my little mini rant,

Wes


--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

More about : elements offered demo

Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:52:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1.2 Ghz Athlon with only 512mb of RAM? Maybe you should have tried it on a
400 mhz Pentium III first!

Photoshop CS loads in about 10 seconds on my 2.8Ghz P4 with 1gb RAM for
reference. Maybe its time for an upgrade.

Eric Miller


<clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:112revj4pj8c803@news.supernews.com...
> I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
> like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
> program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.
>
> Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
> Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
> and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
> bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.
>
> Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
> adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
> hurried home from work to test it.
>
> On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
> screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
> picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
> you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
> wanted from Adobe.
>
> The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
> 1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.
>
> Just my little mini rant,
>
> Wes
>
>
> --
> Reply to:
> Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
> Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
> like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
> program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.
>
> Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
> Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
> and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
> bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.
>
> Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
> adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
> hurried home from work to test it.
>
> On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
> screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
> picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
> you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
> wanted from Adobe.
>
> The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
> 1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.
>
> Just my little mini rant,
>
> Wes
>
>
Just wondering what, besides your slow computer, turned you off.
Granted, the Organizer is a bit buggy, but the editor is unmatched at
this price level. With Amazon rebates, it cost me only $49.95. The
trial version (NOT DEMO), is a bit slow, which is a pretty DUMB way to
disable a trial program, in my opinion. Perhaps you can get someone to
let you try the installed commercial version on a machine similar to
yours. I find it quite acceptable on my 1.3ghz laptop. It is a bit
slow to load the editor portion from the Organizer, but one open,
doesn't have to reload.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 8, 2005 1:20:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eric Miller" <ericmiller@cox-internet.com> wrote:

>1.2 Ghz Athlon with only 512mb of RAM? Maybe you should have tried it on a
>400 mhz Pentium III first!
>
>Photoshop CS loads in about 10 seconds on my 2.8Ghz P4 with 1gb RAM for
>reference. Maybe its time for an upgrade.
>
>Eric Miller

I don't think so. Everything else that I run loads in a reasonable
amount of time.

I left out W2K SP4 from description.

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:20:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> "Eric Miller" <ericmiller@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>1.2 Ghz Athlon with only 512mb of RAM? Maybe you should have tried it on a
>>400 mhz Pentium III first!
>>
>>Photoshop CS loads in about 10 seconds on my 2.8Ghz P4 with 1gb RAM for
>>reference. Maybe its time for an upgrade.
>>
>>Eric Miller
>
>
> I don't think so. Everything else that I run loads in a reasonable
> amount of time.
>
> I left out W2K SP4 from description.
>
> Wes
>

Load speed isn't a major advantage of PSE3, but once you get it loaded,
it does a good job.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 8, 2005 1:20:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Load speed isn't a major advantage of PSE3, but once you get it loaded,
> it does a good job.


Full PS is also very slow loading.
March 8, 2005 5:57:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message news:112revj4pj8c803@news.supernews.com...
|I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
| like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
| program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.
|
| Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
| Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
| and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
| bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.
|
| Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
| adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
| hurried home from work to test it.
|
| On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
| screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
| picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
| you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
| wanted from Adobe.
|
| The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
| 1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.
|
| Just my little mini rant,
|
| Wes
|
|
| --
| Reply to:
| Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
| Lycos address is a spam trap.

I'm sure there's a point in here somewhere.
March 8, 2005 5:57:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Beano" <beano@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'm sure there's a point in here somewhere.

You had to include my entire post to say that?



--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> "Eric Miller" <ericmiller@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>> 1.2 Ghz Athlon with only 512mb of RAM? Maybe you should have tried
>> it on a 400 mhz Pentium III first!
>>
>> Photoshop CS loads in about 10 seconds on my 2.8Ghz P4 with 1gb RAM
>> for reference. Maybe its time for an upgrade.
>>
>> Eric Miller
>
> I don't think so. Everything else that I run loads in a reasonable
> amount of time.
>
> I left out W2K SP4 from description.
>
> Wes

E3 is not a fast loader, but a good machine (generally means both speed
and RAM size (512 is small for serious graphic work) will load it a lot
faster than that. ... I just tried mine and it loaded in 13 seconds.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
March 8, 2005 7:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:17:55 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

> E3 is not a fast loader, but a good machine (generally means both speed
>and RAM size (512 is small for serious graphic work) will load it a lot
>faster than that. ... I just tried mine and it loaded in 13 seconds.

Joseph,

I'm going to have to either upgrade or replace (same difference?) my
main computer that controls my scanner. Would you mind telling me what
your machine configuration is? It would help me decide on a direction
for my next step.

Thanks,
Roger
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> clutch@lycos.com wrote:
>
>>"Eric Miller" <ericmiller@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1.2 Ghz Athlon with only 512mb of RAM? Maybe you should have tried
>>>it on a 400 mhz Pentium III first!
>>>
>>>Photoshop CS loads in about 10 seconds on my 2.8Ghz P4 with 1gb RAM
>>>for reference. Maybe its time for an upgrade.
>>>
>>>Eric Miller
>>
>>I don't think so. Everything else that I run loads in a reasonable
>>amount of time.
>>
>>I left out W2K SP4 from description.
>>
>>Wes
>
>
> E3 is not a fast loader, but a good machine (generally means both speed
> and RAM size (512 is small for serious graphic work) will load it a lot
> faster than that. ... I just tried mine and it loaded in 13 seconds.
>
It takes 22 seconds to load to Organizer on my AThlon XP 2200+ (1.8
Ghz). Loading the editor after that takes another 30 seconds (rarely
necessary). I can wait that long.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:17:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:17:55 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> E3 is not a fast loader, but a good machine (generally means both speed
>>and RAM size (512 is small for serious graphic work) will load it a lot
>>faster than that. ... I just tried mine and it loaded in 13 seconds.
>
>
> Joseph,
>
> I'm going to have to either upgrade or replace (same difference?) my
> main computer that controls my scanner. Would you mind telling me what
> your machine configuration is? It would help me decide on a direction
> for my next step.
>
> Thanks,
> Roger

Are we talking PC or Mac? The more RAM, and faster processor, the
better. WinXP for the PC and OS X (latest version at the time) for the
Mac. A large HD is also a plus if you intend to work with a lot of
pictures.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:36:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Try Picass2 again. You can flag (use the star) any pix u want, then
select the starred photos and do anything you want with them.



On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:52:57 -0500, clutch@lycos.com wrote:

>I was all hot to buy Adobe Elements 3.0 since the healing brush seemed
>like a neat feature and I really needed a good photo organizing
>program and it seemed like their offering would fill the bill.
>
>Well, OfficeMax didn't have it, said they do not carry adobe products,
>Sam's club had microsoft stuff but no adobe, Staples didn't carry it
>and BestBuy (I hate the place) only had it with some dvd software
>bundled for 149.99 or what is known as full list.
>
>Well, my employer has nice pipes so I downloaded the 122+MB demo from
>adobe to my sony v3, yes, the camera can be a file sharing device, and
>hurried home from work to test it.
>
>On a 1.2Ghz 512MB athelon, it took 90 seconds to load to the startup
>screen. Organizing my pictures was very slow. I just recently tried
>picasa2 which doesn't allow putting your culls into a little pile that
>you can get to when you want to, which is one of the features, I
>wanted from Adobe.
>
>The good news, is that I took part of the money I saved and bought the
>1.7x tele adaptor for my Sony V-3.
>
>Just my little mini rant,
>
>Wes
March 9, 2005 12:25:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Just wondering what, besides your slow computer, turned you off.
>Granted, the Organizer is a bit buggy, but the editor is unmatched at
>this price level. With Amazon rebates, it cost me only $49.95. The
>trial version (NOT DEMO), is a bit slow, which is a pretty DUMB way to
>disable a trial program, in my opinion. Perhaps you can get someone to
>let you try the installed commercial version on a machine similar to
>yours. I find it quite acceptable on my 1.3ghz laptop. It is a bit
>slow to load the editor portion from the Organizer, but one open,
>doesn't have to reload.

Oh, two hangs trying to install directx on a box that is at current
directx rev level. "failure to initialize application errors" that
don't seem to stop me from trying this program out.

It did install w/o directx issues on another box but it also gives
"failure to initialize application" errors on startup also. That box
is also W2k but is a bit slower with framebuffer video, and only 384M
ram.

I'm just a bit disapointed, I am not out to trash Adobe, they make
some great stuff. Their trial doesn't seem to be.

Generally, you try to put your best foot forward when trying to sell
to a customer. A car salesman isn't going to have you demo the lot
lemon. Oh well, I am playing with this because I am getting the hang
of the Orginizer and I am warming up to it.

I have elements 2.0 and it seemed like it was an okay program, one
more tool in the toolbox. I figured a really good organizer + a more
capable editor would be win-win.

FWIW, my slow box is rather speedy, it is a 1.2 gig machine next to a
800mhz machine on a kvm switch. The slower box does ripping, burning
and any other thing that doesn't tolerate contention for processor
cycles. A multi processor box of a different type.

I'm going to try to apply the 3.01 update to the trial and see what
happens.

Well, so much for that. The update that came out after the trial will
not update the trial.

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
March 9, 2005 12:25:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Just wondering what, besides your slow computer, turned you off.
>Granted, the Organizer is a bit buggy, but the editor is unmatched at
>this price level. With Amazon rebates, it cost me only $49.95. The
>trial version (NOT DEMO), is a bit slow, which is a pretty DUMB way to
>disable a trial program, in my opinion. Perhaps you can get someone to
>let you try the installed commercial version on a machine similar to
>yours. I find it quite acceptable on my 1.3ghz laptop. It is a bit
>slow to load the editor portion from the Organizer, but one open,
>doesn't have to reload.

Darn, after I posted, I re-read your message. You are saying they
made the trial slow on purpose? What is load time on your 1.3Ghz
laptop? That is load to orginizer. What is your ram and OS?

Thanks, Seems like I have a bit of tunnel vision the last two days.

Wes



--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:29:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Just wondering what, besides your slow computer, turned you off.
>>Granted, the Organizer is a bit buggy, but the editor is unmatched at
>>this price level. With Amazon rebates, it cost me only $49.95. The
>>trial version (NOT DEMO), is a bit slow, which is a pretty DUMB way to
>>disable a trial program, in my opinion. Perhaps you can get someone to
>>let you try the installed commercial version on a machine similar to
>>yours. I find it quite acceptable on my 1.3ghz laptop. It is a bit
>>slow to load the editor portion from the Organizer, but one open,
>>doesn't have to reload.
>
>
> Oh, two hangs trying to install directx on a box that is at current
> directx rev level. "failure to initialize application errors" that
> don't seem to stop me from trying this program out.
>
> It did install w/o directx issues on another box but it also gives
> "failure to initialize application" errors on startup also. That box
> is also W2k but is a bit slower with framebuffer video, and only 384M
> ram.
>
> I'm just a bit disapointed, I am not out to trash Adobe, they make
> some great stuff. Their trial doesn't seem to be.
>
> Generally, you try to put your best foot forward when trying to sell
> to a customer. A car salesman isn't going to have you demo the lot
> lemon. Oh well, I am playing with this because I am getting the hang
> of the Orginizer and I am warming up to it.
>
> I have elements 2.0 and it seemed like it was an okay program, one
> more tool in the toolbox. I figured a really good organizer + a more
> capable editor would be win-win.
>
> FWIW, my slow box is rather speedy, it is a 1.2 gig machine next to a
> 800mhz machine on a kvm switch. The slower box does ripping, burning
> and any other thing that doesn't tolerate contention for processor
> cycles. A multi processor box of a different type.
>
> I'm going to try to apply the 3.01 update to the trial and see what
> happens.
>
> Well, so much for that. The update that came out after the trial will
> not update the trial.
>
> Wes
>
Waste of time. The 3.01 update ONLY applies a patch of the date format
to allow those in Europe to see dates in their accustomed format.

As for 1.2 gHz, my laptop is faster than that. Anything under 2.4 gHz
is considered below average these days.

I haven't loaded the trial as I have the paid for version. The
organizer has some bugs, and some glaring faults, but the program has
the best 'auto-fix' I have seen yet, easy red-eye elimination (which v2
lacked), and a 'healing brush' that is beautiful. It will also separate
multiple pictures scanned together (if you allow space between them).
Noise elimination is also pretty good. Even though I have PSE 2, I
consider PSE 3 well worth the investment. When one learns to bypass, or
avoid, the bugs in the Organizer, it too can be used to good effect.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:33:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Just wondering what, besides your slow computer, turned you off.
>>Granted, the Organizer is a bit buggy, but the editor is unmatched at
>>this price level. With Amazon rebates, it cost me only $49.95. The
>>trial version (NOT DEMO), is a bit slow, which is a pretty DUMB way to
>>disable a trial program, in my opinion. Perhaps you can get someone to
>>let you try the installed commercial version on a machine similar to
>>yours. I find it quite acceptable on my 1.3ghz laptop. It is a bit
>>slow to load the editor portion from the Organizer, but one open,
>>doesn't have to reload.
>
>
> Darn, after I posted, I re-read your message. You are saying they
> made the trial slow on purpose? What is load time on your 1.3Ghz
> laptop? That is load to orginizer. What is your ram and OS?
>
> Thanks, Seems like I have a bit of tunnel vision the last two days.
>
> Wes
>
>
>
I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
slower..intentional or not.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> clutch@lycos.com wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
> I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
> from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
> The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
> seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
> additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
> can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
> purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
> slower..intentional or not.

My experience is pretty much the same for my Elements 3 (standard
edition) running on my machine (1500 MHz, 256MB memory, 26GB partition
with 8 used; I think the disc would be 5200rpm). If I right click a
750 KB JPG and start timing after clicking Open with Elements 3.0, it
is 20 seconds before the picture is displayed for editing. The
original Elements (1.0, I suppose) takes 12 seconds.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

" ..... 512 is small for serious graphic work ......"

About five years ago 128MB was really a huge amount of memory. I wonder
if there were no "serious graphic work" at all back in those days.

Markku Virtanen
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:30:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton <not.jim.silverton@erols.com> wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> clutch@lycos.com wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>> I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
>> from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
>> The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
>> seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
>> additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
>> can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
>> purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
>> slower..intentional or not.
>
> My experience is pretty much the same for my Elements 3 (standard
> edition) running on my machine (1500 MHz, 256MB memory, 26GB partition
> with 8 used; I think the disc would be 5200rpm). If I right click a
> 750 KB JPG and start timing after clicking Open with Elements 3.0, it
> is 20 seconds before the picture is displayed for editing. The
> original Elements (1.0, I suppose) takes 12 seconds.

Agreed. Elements 3.0 is a dog to start up -- to the point that it's not
worth associating with JPG as the default application. Irfanview is fine
for viewing and some very simple modifications; I *explicitly* invoke
Elements for its editing and organising capabilities.

It's a bigger and more complex application than Elements 1 and 2, but I
believe the additional power makes it worth the effort.

High on the wish-list for Elements 4 would be an ultra-light
image-viewer that could invoke the full program.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
March 9, 2005 7:51:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
>from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
>The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
>seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
>additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
>can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
>purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
>slower..intentional or not.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep playing with the trial a bit and
likely, will pick up the paid version in a couple weeks before the
trial times out.

Wes



--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:19:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Markku V. wrote:
> " ..... 512 is small for serious graphic work ......"
>
> About five years ago 128MB was really a huge amount of memory. I wonder
> if there were no "serious graphic work" at all back in those days.
>
> Markku Virtanen
>
Really amusing for a guy who started working with computers on a machine
with LESS than 1k of ram. We did military and civilian payroll for abut
20,000 people, including printing checks, and personnel processing, and
training records, as well as maintenance manhour accounting. I am sure
anyone proposing a computer with 1k of ram these days would be found
legally insane. Times change.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
>
>>from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
>
>>The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
>>seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
>>additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
>>can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
>>purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
>>slower..intentional or not.
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep playing with the trial a bit and
> likely, will pick up the paid version in a couple weeks before the
> trial times out.
>
> Wes
>
>
>
Even with some rather ugly warts on the Organizer, I think the program
is worth the asking price.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:35:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The definition of serious has changed. :-)

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Markku V." <markku.vir@luukku.com> wrote in message
news:1110401890.124890.87030@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>" ..... 512 is small for serious graphic work ......"
>
> About five years ago 128MB was really a huge amount of memory. I wonder
> if there were no "serious graphic work" at all back in those days.
>
> Markku Virtanen
>
March 10, 2005 11:31:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Really amusing for a guy who started working with computers on a machine
>with LESS than 1k of ram. We did military and civilian payroll for abut
>20,000 people, including printing checks, and personnel processing, and
>training records, as well as maintenance manhour accounting. I am sure
>anyone proposing a computer with 1k of ram these days would be found
>legally insane. Times change.

Ferite, drum, or something else?

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 3:14:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1 Gig of RAM and about 1.9 GHz

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Roger" <leica35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8slr215uhvq892ggj3duq6lr7trb37uss4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:17:55 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> E3 is not a fast loader, but a good machine (generally means both
>> speed
>>and RAM size (512 is small for serious graphic work) will load it a lot
>>faster than that. ... I just tried mine and it loaded in 13 seconds.
>
> Joseph,
>
> I'm going to have to either upgrade or replace (same difference?) my
> main computer that controls my scanner. Would you mind telling me what
> your machine configuration is? It would help me decide on a direction
> for my next step.
>
> Thanks,
> Roger
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <OMEXd.14585$uE.13545@fe07.lga>, rphunter@charter.net (Ron
Hunter) wrote:

> I haven't loaded the trial as I have the paid for version. The
> organizer has some bugs,
Any examples?

Iain
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Iain Laskey wrote:
> In article <OMEXd.14585$uE.13545@fe07.lga>, rphunter@charter.net (Ron
> Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't loaded the trial as I have the paid for version. The
>>organizer has some bugs,
>
> Any examples?
>
> Iain
The most annoying, for me it the inability to relink files moved from
outside Organizer except by a laborious 4 click per picture ordeal.
There are concerns about catalog corruption, failure to import tags, and
some other minor problems. So far, the only problem Adobe has corrected
is an issue with US/European date formats.
Problems with the editor portion seem limited to a tendency for the
image to 'jump' if the picture is using scroll bars. I haven't seen
that one.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:10:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bmYYd.50952$Rm5.15214@fe06.lga>, rphunter@charter.net (Ron
Hunter) wrote:
> The most annoying, for me it the inability to relink files moved from
> outside Organizer except by a laborious 4 click per picture ordeal.
> There are concerns about catalog corruption, failure to import tags,
> and some other minor problems. So far, the only problem Adobe has
> corrected is an issue with US/European date formats.
> Problems with the editor portion seem limited to a tendency for the
> image to 'jump' if the picture is using scroll bars. I haven't seen
> that one.
Thanks Ron.


Iain
March 14, 2005 3:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is a test only, apologies!!!!
Nobody

On 14/3/05 11:10 am, in article
memo.20050314110959.3904A@ilba14195.www.blueyonder.co.uk, "Iain Laskey"
<i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <bmYYd.50952$Rm5.15214@fe06.lga>, rphunter@charter.net (Ron
> Hunter) wrote:
>> The most annoying, for me it the inability to relink files moved from
>> outside Organizer except by a laborious 4 click per picture ordeal.
>> There are concerns about catalog corruption, failure to import tags,
>> and some other minor problems. So far, the only problem Adobe has
>> corrected is an issue with US/European date formats.
>> Problems with the editor portion seem limited to a tendency for the
>> image to 'jump' if the picture is using scroll bars. I haven't seen
>> that one.
> Thanks Ron.
>
>
> Iain
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 3:47:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> clutch@lycos.com wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>> I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about
>> it
>> from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
>> The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about
>> 22
>> seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
>> additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
>> can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
>> purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
>> slower..intentional or not.
>
> My experience is pretty much the same for my Elements 3 (standard
> edition) running on my machine (1500 MHz, 256MB memory, 26GB
> partition
> with 8 used; I think the disc would be 5200rpm). If I right click a
> 750 KB JPG and start timing after clicking Open with Elements 3.0,
> it
> is 20 seconds before the picture is displayed for editing. The
> original Elements (1.0, I suppose) takes 12 seconds.

An interesting statistic: today I increased the memory of my machine
to 512MB and tried loading Elements 3.0 by the same route and the time
decreased from 20 seconds to 15. It does seem that memory is a factor.
I don't think I am going to try many more modifications since the
mother board on my 2 1/2 year old machine runs at 266MHz and memory
with that speed is hard to find. 333MHz is the fashionable speed these
days but I don't intend to replace a perfectly satisfactory machine
just yet. My usual criterion is an increase in the CPU speed by about
5 and I haven't seen any 7GHz machines yet.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
March 20, 2005 3:43:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>I don't have the trial version, but have been reading a lot about it
>from users in the Photoshop Elements forums.
>The PSE 3 paid version loads on my WinXP Home SP2 laptop in about 22
>seconds (to the Organizer). Loading the Editor from there takes an
>additional minute! The computer has 512M and a 7200rpm 60GB HD. I
>can't imagine that a company would make a trial version slower on
>purpose, but from what other users have said, it appears to BE
>slower..intentional or not.


Well, I picked up a copy today at Sam's club (78.37) plus MI tax. I
had it on order for a couple weeks with amazon but they pushed back
delivery date and Sam's was 7 bucks less :) 

On my machine, it is taking 10 seconds to load to organizer which is
such an improvement. I don't know why they made the trial slow
either.

Thanks for your help on this,

Wes


--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
!