Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anybody uses PaintShop for digital photography?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 3:01:32 AM

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

I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color channel)
when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with digital images
(also comes with a RAW file converter).

Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but could
not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a reality?

Gregor
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 3:01:33 AM

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

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:01:32 GMT, "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color channel)
>when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with digital images
>(also comes with a RAW file converter).
>
>Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
>supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
>around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but could
>not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a reality?
>
>Gregor
>

Check here (link's likely wrapped):

http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/...
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 4:30:38 AM

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

Thanks. Your link works great. What I do not understand is why I cannot link
to it from their main page. Corel seems not to try to sell PSP X to all
users of PSP 9. I also did not receive any mail or e-mail about this upgrade
although the old company, JASC Inc., had my mailing information. I would
image that a 16-bit full-featured editing tool that supports color
management is a great thing to sell. I hope it supports Adobe RGB and
Nikon's encrypted WB in their new NEF files.

Gregor

"Bill M" <bwmeck@removethis.starpower.net> wrote in message
news:mhekh11ncsils140ulfkbbpe661q3kmtsc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:01:32 GMT, "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
>>channel)
>>when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with digital
>>images
>>(also comes with a RAW file converter).
>>
>>Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
>>supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
>>around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
>>could
>>not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
>>reality?
>>
>>Gregor
>>
>
> Check here (link's likely wrapped):
>
> http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/...
>
Related resources
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 4:30:39 AM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:30:38 GMT, "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thanks. Your link works great. What I do not understand is why I cannot link
>to it from their main page. Corel seems not to try to sell PSP X to all
>users of PSP 9. I also did not receive any mail or e-mail about this upgrade
>although the old company, JASC Inc., had my mailing information. I would
>image that a 16-bit full-featured editing tool that supports color
>management is a great thing to sell. I hope it supports Adobe RGB and
>Nikon's encrypted WB in their new NEF files.
>
>Gregor

Frequently, people will tell the company to not email them about
anything when they register. Is this maybe what you did?
I got email about PSP X.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 4:35:09 AM

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

Thinking about NEF, I always thought it stands for Nikon Electronic Format.
But maybe, it stands for Nikon Encrypted Format ;-)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o erSe.683$pt.199@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Thanks. Your link works great. What I do not understand is why I cannot
> link to it from their main page. Corel seems not to try to sell PSP X to
> all users of PSP 9. I also did not receive any mail or e-mail about this
> upgrade although the old company, JASC Inc., had my mailing information. I
> would image that a 16-bit full-featured editing tool that supports color
> management is a great thing to sell. I hope it supports Adobe RGB and
> Nikon's encrypted WB in their new NEF files.
>
> Gregor
>
> "Bill M" <bwmeck@removethis.starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:mhekh11ncsils140ulfkbbpe661q3kmtsc@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:01:32 GMT, "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
>>>channel)
>>>when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with digital
>>>images
>>>(also comes with a RAW file converter).
>>>
>>>Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
>>>supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
>>>around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
>>>could
>>>not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
>>>reality?
>>>
>>>Gregor
>>>
>>
>> Check here (link's likely wrapped):
>>
>> http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/...
>>
>
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:52:09 AM

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

GTO wrote:
> I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
> channel) when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with
> digital images (also comes with a RAW file converter).
>
> Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
> supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should
> ship around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web
> site but could not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X
> with 16-bit is a reality?
> Gregor

Yes, there is a new Paint Shop Pro, but the upgrade has only been offered
to people in North America so far. As a registered user in the UK, I have
had no notification of the upgrade, nor a chance to take part in public
beta testing as happened when JASC owned the software. Private beta
testers are not yet coming forward (NDA) and saying whether they think the
new version is worth upgrading to. Corel even appears to consider it
necessary to tempt people to pay for the upgrade by including a "free
camera strap" with the upgrade. To me, that questions the value of the
upgrade itself. So far, only the camera strap has been delivered.

I wish I could be more positive about software I used to trust.

David
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 3:47:32 PM

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

"GTO" wrote
>
> Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
> supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
> around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
> could not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
> reality?
>

Hi Gregor,

There was a promotional a few weeks back that was sent out to North American
'registered' users. In otherwords you may have bought PSP but if you never
bothered registering you would not have gotten the promotional for PSPX/10.
Also as another poster mentioned you may have registered but opted at that
time not to receive emails in the future thus opting not to get the PSPX/10
promotional.

According to the promo temp webiste PSPX has 16-bit and internal (instead of
Windows like previous versions) color management. Now all the people [like
all 15 of them lol] screaming about wanting 16-bit can go out and buy all
the commercial level equipment that they'll need to make full use of 16-bit
and full Color Management features.

Take care,
Linda
September 4, 2005 7:42:07 PM

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

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:01:32 GMT, "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color channel)
>when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with digital images
>(also comes with a RAW file converter).

It's also faster than PS. I've used it since it was on one floppy!
-Rich
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:12:12 AM

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

"Rich" wrote
>
> It's also faster than PS. I've used it since it was on one floppy!
> -Rich
>

That's old!!!! I started with 4.11 if memory serves, and that was on HD 1.44
floppy.

You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered user
promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel site that PSPX
is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual operating time. That's
always good news with graphics apps!

Take care,
Linda
September 5, 2005 2:36:36 AM

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:12:12 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>
>"Rich" wrote
>>
>> It's also faster than PS. I've used it since it was on one floppy!
>> -Rich
>>
>
>That's old!!!! I started with 4.11 if memory serves, and that was on HD 1.44
>floppy.
>
>You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered user
>promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel site that PSPX
>is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual operating time. That's
>always good news with graphics apps!
>
>Take care,
>Linda
>

Thanks for the info!
-Rich
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:49:36 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
[]
> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!

Linda,

50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a minute
to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest application I have.
(And you'll know I've spent some time trying to resolve this problem). It
also shows there was something seriously not optimised with PSP9.

30% faster operating time doesn't quite square with 16-bit editing
though - there's twice as much data to move around. My guess is that some
of that 30% comes from re-organising the menus so that operations like
"one step photo fix" are a single-click away rather than two, and that the
more advanced options in (for example) Digital Camera Noise Reduction are
hidden away to discourage people from trying them.

We'll see once people who have paid for the product actually receive it.

David
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:13:06 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:49:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>[]
>> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
>> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
>> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
>> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
>
>Linda,
>
>50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a minute
>to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest application I have.
>(And you'll know I've spent some time trying to resolve this problem). It
>also shows there was something seriously not optimised with PSP9.

I just tried starting PSP9 on my system (AMD XP 3200+, XP Pro SP2, 1GB
RAM) from a fresh reboot (nothing cached in RAM) and it took under 15
seconds. A restart took 9 seconds.
Maybe there's something not optimized in your system?
>
>30% faster operating time doesn't quite square with 16-bit editing
>though - there's twice as much data to move around. My guess is that some
>of that 30% comes from re-organising the menus so that operations like
>"one step photo fix" are a single-click away rather than two, and that the
>more advanced options in (for example) Digital Camera Noise Reduction are
>hidden away to discourage people from trying them.
>
>We'll see once people who have paid for the product actually receive it.

I'm certainly looking forward to it.
I can't afford (or justify) PhotoShop.
>
>David
>

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 4:15:46 PM

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

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gXpSe.659$pt.600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
>channel) when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with
>digital images (also comes with a RAW file converter).
>
> Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
> supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
> around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
> could not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
> reality?
>
> Gregor
>
>
Yes, I still use ver 5! I'm pretty much hands off with my photos. I may
crop, adjust contrast and gamma and sharpen, but not much else. I do wish it
had a good histogram control. I'm familiar with ver 7 (we have it at work).
It is very slow in comparison, but has better control.

Now that Correl owns PSP, I hope they don't turn it in to a bloated toad
that requires patches every week and is locked to the machine with
encryption keys. YUCK!
John
September 5, 2005 10:40:06 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:49:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> []
> > You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
> > user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
> > site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
> > operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
>
> Linda,
>
> 50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a minute
> to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest application I have.
> (And you'll know I've spent some time trying to resolve this problem). It
> also shows there was something seriously not optimised with PSP9.
>
> 30% faster operating time doesn't quite square with 16-bit editing
> though - there's twice as much data to move around. My guess is that some
> of that 30% comes from re-organising the menus so that operations like
> "one step photo fix" are a single-click away rather than two, and that the
> more advanced options in (for example) Digital Camera Noise Reduction are
> hidden away to discourage people from trying them.
>
> We'll see once people who have paid for the product actually receive it.
>
> David
>

From the Web site:
Paint Shop Pro X is up to 50% faster than previous versions
You'll be happy to know that NEW Paint Shop Pro X has a 30% faster startup time,
the ability to work faster on large photos, and near-instant undo and redo. Plus
the NEW Learning Center organizes tools in a logical way, so you'll be able to
get started as soon as you double-click the Paint Shop Pro icon.

--
David: NorthWest England
Claim nothing;enjoy
September 5, 2005 10:42:07 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:13:06 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:49:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> >[]
> >> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
> >> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
> >> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
> >> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
> >
> >Linda,
> >
> >50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a minute
> >to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest application I have.
> >(And you'll know I've spent some time trying to resolve this problem). It
> >also shows there was something seriously not optimised with PSP9.
>
> I just tried starting PSP9 on my system (AMD XP 3200+, XP Pro SP2, 1GB
> RAM) from a fresh reboot (nothing cached in RAM) and it took under 15
> seconds. A restart took 9 seconds.
> Maybe there's something not optimized in your system?

Yes I get about the same figures AMD2000 XP Home SP2 1GB RAM
> >
> >30% faster operating time doesn't quite square with 16-bit editing
> >though - there's twice as much data to move around. My guess is that some
> >of that 30% comes from re-organising the menus so that operations like
> >"one step photo fix" are a single-click away rather than two, and that the
> >more advanced options in (for example) Digital Camera Noise Reduction are
> >hidden away to discourage people from trying them.
> >
> >We'll see once people who have paid for the product actually receive it.
>
> I'm certainly looking forward to it.
> I can't afford (or justify) PhotoShop.
> >
> >David
> >
--
David: NorthWest England
Claim nothing;enjoy
September 5, 2005 10:58:41 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:15:46 GMT, "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:

>"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:gXpSe.659$pt.600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
>>channel) when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with
>>digital images (also comes with a RAW file converter).
>>
>> Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
>> supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
>> around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
>> could not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
>> reality?
>>
>> Gregor
>>
>>
>Yes, I still use ver 5! I'm pretty much hands off with my photos. I may
>crop, adjust contrast and gamma and sharpen, but not much else. I do wish it
>had a good histogram control. I'm familiar with ver 7 (we have it at work).
>It is very slow in comparison, but has better control.
>
>Now that Correl owns PSP, I hope they don't turn it in to a bloated toad
>that requires patches every week and is locked to the machine with
>encryption keys. YUCK!
>John
>

What I really, really want is something radical. You know how it has
low-medium-highlight adjustments? I use this more than the histogram
function. What I would like is for them to break it up into
5 or more "zones" like in B&W photography, and provide a physical
product, a bank of dials (USB ported) that you could adjust and watch
the picture change in real time. This would really assist in dealing
with gross or subtle adjustments.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:17:17 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:49:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>> []
>>> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
>>> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
>>> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
>>> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
>>
>> Linda,
>>
>> 50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a
>> minute to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest
>> application I have. (And you'll know I've spent some time trying to
>> resolve this problem). It also shows there was something seriously
>> not optimised with PSP9.
>
> I just tried starting PSP9 on my system (AMD XP 3200+, XP Pro SP2, 1GB
> RAM) from a fresh reboot (nothing cached in RAM) and it took under 15
> seconds. A restart took 9 seconds.
> Maybe there's something not optimized in your system?


I would agree that seems possible, but others were reporting similar
startup times, as well as the shorter startup times you have seen. The
combined wisdom of JASC, Corel, and their support groups couldn't find or
cure the problem, though.

David
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:17:18 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:17:17 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:49:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>>> []
>>>> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
>>>> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
>>>> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
>>>> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
>>>
>>> Linda,
>>>
>>> 50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a
>>> minute to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest
>>> application I have. (And you'll know I've spent some time trying to
>>> resolve this problem). It also shows there was something seriously
>>> not optimised with PSP9.
>>
>> I just tried starting PSP9 on my system (AMD XP 3200+, XP Pro SP2, 1GB
>> RAM) from a fresh reboot (nothing cached in RAM) and it took under 15
>> seconds. A restart took 9 seconds.
>> Maybe there's something not optimized in your system?
>
>
>I would agree that seems possible, but others were reporting similar
>startup times, as well as the shorter startup times you have seen. The
>combined wisdom of JASC, Corel, and their support groups couldn't find or
>cure the problem, though.
>
>David
>
If the app starts quickly on some systems, but not others, it's
unlikely there's an intrinsic problem in the app that would cause
this.
It's much more likely there's something different in those systems
that start the app slowly.

I know that some systems are bound up by malware that the user doesn't
see. I also know some hard drives are so badly fragmented that it
slows down all file access. Also, some memory isn't up to the task
becasue it's either insuffucient, too slow, wrong type & not
recognized (or used). There are many other things that can slow a
system down tnat he average computer user can't find. <shrug>

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:37:53 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:58:41 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:15:46 GMT, "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:gXpSe.659$pt.600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
>>>channel) when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with
>>>digital images (also comes with a RAW file converter).
>>>
>>> Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
>>> supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
>>> around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
>>> could not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
>>> reality?
>>>
>>> Gregor
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, I still use ver 5! I'm pretty much hands off with my photos. I may
>>crop, adjust contrast and gamma and sharpen, but not much else. I do wish it
>>had a good histogram control. I'm familiar with ver 7 (we have it at work).
>>It is very slow in comparison, but has better control.
>>
>>Now that Correl owns PSP, I hope they don't turn it in to a bloated toad
>>that requires patches every week and is locked to the machine with
>>encryption keys. YUCK!
>>John
>>
>
>What I really, really want is something radical. You know how it has
>low-medium-highlight adjustments? I use this more than the histogram
>function. What I would like is for them to break it up into
>5 or more "zones" like in B&W photography, and provide a physical
>product, a bank of dials (USB ported) that you could adjust and watch
>the picture change in real time. This would really assist in dealing
>with gross or subtle adjustments.
>-Rich

Why in the world would you want physical dials?
This can be done in software very easily. It can be dials on the
screen, but I imagine more people would be happier with the current
slider graphical interface. Live preview is already in PSP9.
Add dials in a 5 1/4" faceplate? A plate to hang on the side? Sit on
top of the box? Why?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:25:32 AM

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

"Bill Funk" wrote
>
> I know that some systems are bound up by malware that the user doesn't
> see. I also know some hard drives are so badly fragmented that it
> slows down all file access. Also, some memory isn't up to the task
> becasue it's either insuffucient, too slow, wrong type & not
> recognized (or used). There are many other things that can slow a
> system down tnat he average computer user can't find. <shrug>
>

I found Norton AV 2005 really impacted my laptop's performance. I don't know
what changed between 2004 and 2005, but whatever it was was a system
resource hog.

I have a slower machine than those noted and my PSP still only takes
approximately 20 seconds to finish loading. It did take longer the first
time after install though, but that's only the once. I don't find 20secs bad
for this celeron [older not new M class celeron] laptop with only 512mgs
ram. Adobe Elements takes a heck of a lot longer to boot, near 1 minute, and
on occasion just hangs on the splash screen. PS (5) is inbetween the two.

Take care,
Linda
September 6, 2005 3:25:33 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Bill Funk" wrote
>
>>I know that some systems are bound up by malware that the user doesn't
>>see. I also know some hard drives are so badly fragmented that it
>>slows down all file access. Also, some memory isn't up to the task
>>becasue it's either insuffucient, too slow, wrong type & not
>>recognized (or used). There are many other things that can slow a
>>system down tnat he average computer user can't find. <shrug>
>>
>
> I found Norton AV 2005 really impacted my laptop's performance. I don't know
> what changed between 2004 and 2005, but whatever it was was a system
> resource hog.
>
> I have a slower machine than those noted and my PSP still only takes
> approximately 20 seconds to finish loading. It did take longer the first
> time after install though, but that's only the once. I don't find 20secs bad
> for this celeron [older not new M class celeron] laptop with only 512mgs
> ram. Adobe Elements takes a heck of a lot longer to boot, near 1 minute, and
> on occasion just hangs on the splash screen. PS (5) is inbetween the two.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
>


Do you have 'on access' scanning option enabled? If you do, it means
Norton is scanning each and every needed file each and every time it's
read from disk. I'm not that paranoid so I turned it off.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
September 6, 2005 3:25:34 AM

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

For what it's worth, the book "PaintShop Pro 9 - Photographers' Guide"
by Diane Koers has been posted as a PDF in
alt.binaries.e-book.technical.

Fred
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:27:24 AM

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

"David" wrote

> From the Web site:
> Paint Shop Pro X is up to 50% faster than previous versions
> You'll be happy to know that NEW Paint Shop Pro X has a 30% faster startup
> time,
> the ability to work faster on large photos, and near-instant undo and
> redo. Plus
> the NEW Learning Center organizes tools in a logical way, so you'll be
> able to
> get started as soon as you double-click the Paint Shop Pro icon.
>
> --

I had it backwards. These specs are even better. I had performance
improvement as only 30%, and startup being 50%. I like it the other way
around better!

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:34:21 AM

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

"JohnR66" wrote>>
>>
> Yes, I still use ver 5! I'm pretty much hands off with my photos. I may
> crop, adjust contrast and gamma and sharpen, but not much else. I do wish
> it had a good histogram control. I'm familiar with ver 7 (we have it at
> work). It is very slow in comparison, but has better control.
>

If you downloaded the trial of PSP 9 (hopefully a trial of PSPX will be
available in the near future) you will be pleasantly surprised with the
enhancements that were made to the histogram adjustment tool. It even has on
overlay showing the current histogram and what the histogram will look like
with the current dialog settings. Fine tuning is easy. The leap from PSP 7
to PSP 8 was huge. The leap from PSP 8 to PSP 9 was small.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:10:29 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
[]
> If the app starts quickly on some systems, but not others, it's
> unlikely there's an intrinsic problem in the app that would cause
> this.

The best reported times were around 15 seconds. That's not "starting
quickly".

> It's much more likely there's something different in those systems
> that start the app slowly.
>
> I know that some systems are bound up by malware that the user doesn't
> see. I also know some hard drives are so badly fragmented that it
> slows down all file access. Also, some memory isn't up to the task
> becasue it's either insuffucient, too slow, wrong type & not
> recognized (or used). There are many other things that can slow a
> system down tnat he average computer user can't find. <shrug>

1GB memory, 1.9GHz processor, disk checked for DMA access, anti-virus
disabled for that programs folder (with all its DLLs), disks defragmented
daily, malware checked with two different scanners, page file contiguous
and fixed at twice physical memory.

I have the "been there, done that" feeling!

Thanks anyway.

David
September 6, 2005 12:34:58 PM

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 23:27:24 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>
> I had it backwards. These specs are even better. I had performance
> improvement as only 30%, and startup being 50%. I like it the other way
> around better!
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
So do I; though the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - not
long now hopefully.
--
David: NorthWest England
Claim nothing;enjoy
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:18:14 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:10:29 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>[]
>> If the app starts quickly on some systems, but not others, it's
>> unlikely there's an intrinsic problem in the app that would cause
>> this.
>
>The best reported times were around 15 seconds. That's not "starting
>quickly".

It is if your time is a minute! :-)
>
>> It's much more likely there's something different in those systems
>> that start the app slowly.
>>
>> I know that some systems are bound up by malware that the user doesn't
>> see. I also know some hard drives are so badly fragmented that it
>> slows down all file access. Also, some memory isn't up to the task
>> becasue it's either insuffucient, too slow, wrong type & not
>> recognized (or used). There are many other things that can slow a
>> system down tnat he average computer user can't find. <shrug>
>
>1GB memory, 1.9GHz processor, disk checked for DMA access, anti-virus
>disabled for that programs folder (with all its DLLs), disks defragmented
>daily, malware checked with two different scanners, page file contiguous
>and fixed at twice physical memory.
>
>I have the "been there, done that" feeling!
>
>Thanks anyway.
>
>David
>
We can only point out the normal problems.
Why your system takes that long to load is a mystery to me, but good
luck!

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:19:08 PM

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

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!

What is the URL for the "temporary page for the registered user promo"?
I am a registered user of PSP 9, all the way back to PSP 5, and was
never notified of any special promo.

Thanks.

Guy
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:19:09 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:19:08 -0500, Guy Scharf <guy@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:
>
>> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
>> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
>> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
>> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
>
>What is the URL for the "temporary page for the registered user promo"?
>I am a registered user of PSP 9, all the way back to PSP 5, and was
>never notified of any special promo.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Guy

Here's a page:
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/...
Take the "Buy Now" trip to the page with prices.
Upgrade (download): $55.00US.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:43:48 PM

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

John,
I just received the upgrade to ver 10. It does support 16 bit (24M
colors) Haven't played with it yet but it starts up fast on this
computer but it's a rather fast computer, P4, 3.2GHz, 1 gig memory. I
ordered it about two weeks ago.
Paul


JohnR66 wrote:
> "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gXpSe.659$pt.600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>I am using PaintShop PRO 9 for all my "8-bit" work (8-bit per color
>>channel) when using sRGB. It's a convinient package when working with
>>digital images (also comes with a RAW file converter).
>>
>>Now I heard about a new version called PaintShop PRO X that supposedly
>>supports 16-bit for most of its tools. I also heard that it should ship
>>around mid of September '05. Yesterday, I checked Corel's web site but
>>could not find anything. Does anybody know whether PSP X with 16-bit is a
>>reality?
>>
>>Gregor
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I still use ver 5! I'm pretty much hands off with my photos. I may
> crop, adjust contrast and gamma and sharpen, but not much else. I do wish it
> had a good histogram control. I'm familiar with ver 7 (we have it at work).
> It is very slow in comparison, but has better control.
>
> Now that Correl owns PSP, I hope they don't turn it in to a bloated toad
> that requires patches every week and is locked to the machine with
> encryption keys. YUCK!
> John
>
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:46:17 PM

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

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> Linda,
>
> 50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a minute
> to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest application I have.
> (And you'll know I've spent some time trying to resolve this problem). It
> also shows there was something seriously not optimised with PSP9.
>
> 30% faster operating time doesn't quite square with 16-bit editing
> though - there's twice as much data to move around. My guess is that some
> of that 30% comes from re-organising the menus so that operations like
> "one step photo fix" are a single-click away rather than two, and that the
> more advanced options in (for example) Digital Camera Noise Reduction are
> hidden away to discourage people from trying them.
>

Years and years ago, around 1999, I worked for JASC for about 12 hours
(long story about a short job). I quit, but not without having a look
at what was then, the source code for version 5.0 (just released or
nearly released IIRC). Anyway, the code was the biggest plate of
spaghetti I had have worked with. Simply rearranging the code and
writing it with true OO rather than wrapping old C code in C++ wrappers
would have gained several 100% increases in performance, if I had to
guess. So, I suspect that even with 16-bit enhancements, code cleanup
could offer a net performance gain. Because of the competitive nature
of the industry, I doubt they have taken the time to really clean up
their code up to now, and have only done so out of a reactive necessity.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:50:30 PM

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

Fred,
How do you extract them? The files end in yEnc? Also each file has the
message header info at the top and extended ascii code following which I
assume is the text in an encoded format?
Paul


Fred@fred.fred wrote:
> For what it's worth, the book "PaintShop Pro 9 - Photographers' Guide"
> by Diane Koers has been posted as a PDF in
> alt.binaries.e-book.technical.
>
> Fred
September 7, 2005 9:33:32 PM

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

Hard to know where to begin...

You just need a yEnc-aware newsreader. Current versions of Agent will
do, as will NewsBin, etc.. AFAIK Outlook won't.

Using your chosen competent software, download the PDF file to your
hard drive... that's all. Sometimes files require joining or
extraction, but not this one.

If you see ASCII code and so on, you are not using the right software.
You are correct about the encoding, but the software should do all the
work for you automatically. It's possible to do it manually, but I
really would not go there.

Don't bother with the PAR files. They are recovery files and are used
only if the file(s) you want are incomplete.

If you are still stuck, search Google on how to use the newsgroups.

Fred


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:50:30 -0400, Paul Schilter
<paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:

>Fred,
> How do you extract them? The files end in yEnc? Also each file has the
>message header info at the top and extended ascii code following which I
>assume is the text in an encoded format?
>Paul
>
>
>Fred@fred.fred wrote:
>> For what it's worth, the book "PaintShop Pro 9 - Photographers' Guide"
>> by Diane Koers has been posted as a PDF in
>> alt.binaries.e-book.technical.
>>
>> Fred
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 10:13:25 PM

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

This may be a little OT, but I think useful if I'm not being hustled to
buy yet another needless product with some kind of trickery. I did an
online scan of one of my computers last night at the Trend Micro free
scan site and it found 21 instances of spyware (and removed them) that
went undetected by the MS Antispyware and Norton Suite programs, both
of which are resident on that machine and run once daily.

On topic, I just tried the Album ver 5 and it opened in 9 seconds. PSP
9 took about 15 seconds. An additional note: I didn't receive a notice
on PSP 10, but when I opened PSP 9 just now, I got an update link which
I followed and it was an offer to buy a ver.10 upgrade for $55, so I
guess they get you one way or another. ;o)

Kitt


Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:17:17 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:49:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> >> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> >>> []
> >>>> You'll be happy to know that the temporary page for the registered
> >>>> user promo (upgrade to PSPX for reduced price) stated on the Corel
> >>>> site that PSPX is 50% fast on start-up and 30% faster in actual
> >>>> operating time. That's always good news with graphics apps!
> >>>
> >>> Linda,
> >>>
> >>> 50% better startup wouldn't be difficult - it could take nearly a
> >>> minute to start PSP9 on my system. It is by far the slowest
> >>> application I have. (And you'll know I've spent some time trying to
> >>> resolve this problem). It also shows there was something seriously
> >>> not optimised with PSP9.
> >>
> >> I just tried starting PSP9 on my system (AMD XP 3200+, XP Pro SP2, 1GB
> >> RAM) from a fresh reboot (nothing cached in RAM) and it took under 15
> >> seconds. A restart took 9 seconds.
> >> Maybe there's something not optimized in your system?
> >
> >
> >I would agree that seems possible, but others were reporting similar
> >startup times, as well as the shorter startup times you have seen. The
> >combined wisdom of JASC, Corel, and their support groups couldn't find or
> >cure the problem, though.
> >
> >David
> >
> If the app starts quickly on some systems, but not others, it's
> unlikely there's an intrinsic problem in the app that would cause
> this.
> It's much more likely there's something different in those systems
> that start the app slowly.
>
> I know that some systems are bound up by malware that the user doesn't
> see. I also know some hard drives are so badly fragmented that it
> slows down all file access. Also, some memory isn't up to the task
> becasue it's either insuffucient, too slow, wrong type & not
> recognized (or used). There are many other things that can slow a
> system down tnat he average computer user can't find. <shrug>
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Replace "g" with "a"
> funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 1:49:56 AM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote
> Years and years ago, around 1999, I worked for JASC for about 12 hours
> (long story about a short job). I quit, but not without having a look
> at what was then, the source code for version 5.0 (just released or
> nearly released IIRC). Anyway, the code was the biggest plate of
> spaghetti I had have worked with.
>

Fastest running plate of spaghetti around at the time though, just like your
employment LOL.

PSP 5 is fine for a lot of people still, though the photo features in PSP X
are exceptional.

PSP 8 was built from scratch, PSP 9 was refined, PSP X is zipping right
along on my older laptop, and blazing on the main machine.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 1:51:12 AM

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

"Bill Funk" wrote
> Here's a page:
>

Thanks for posting the url for me, Bill. I got busy with contract work.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 1:56:06 AM

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

"David"
> So do I; though the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - not
> long now hopefully.
> --

I'm pleased as pudding with PSP X. Have you had the chance to try yet?

The new, and the old but improved photo enhancement tools are very well
done. It is easy to see a company with experience in developing
print/desktop publishing software is at the helm now.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 1:58:23 AM

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

"Jer" wrote
>
> Do you have 'on access' scanning option enabled? If you do, it means
> Norton is scanning each and every needed file each and every time it's
> read from disk. I'm not that paranoid so I turned it off.
>

Nice tip, Jer! Thanks so much. Disabling this has sped things. Of course if
I get a virus now I'm coming for you hahaha.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 2:01:08 AM

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

"Paul Schilter" wrote...
> John,
> I just received the upgrade to ver 10. It does support 16 bit (24M colors)
> Haven't played with it yet but it starts up fast on this computer but it's
> a rather fast computer, P4, 3.2GHz, 1 gig memory. I ordered it about two
> weeks ago.
> Paul
>

My laptop is much less powerful than your machine, but I'm still pleased
with the speed increase in PSP X. Corel is good!

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 4:59:32 AM

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

"Kitt" wrote
> On topic, I just tried the Album ver 5 and it opened in 9 seconds. PSP
> 9 took about 15 seconds. An additional note: I didn't receive a notice
> on PSP 10, but when I opened PSP 9 just now, I got an update link which
> I followed and it was an offer to buy a ver.10 upgrade for $55, so I
> guess they get you one way or another. ;o)
>

Hi Kitt,

The advert in the upgrade notice is something I've already said I find
uncomfortable/unethical. I've never seen it done before Corel, and I don't
at all like it. I hope they stop doing this. It is probably some kid in
marketing who is too inexperienced to realize that people don't want spam,
nor do they want trickery.

Wow on your spyware check. Geesh that's a lot of spyware! Get ZoneAlarm Pro!
It is worth every penny in my opinion.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 5:31:25 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Kitt" wrote
> > On topic, I just tried the Album ver 5 and it opened in 9 seconds. PSP
> > 9 took about 15 seconds. An additional note: I didn't receive a notice
> > on PSP 10, but when I opened PSP 9 just now, I got an update link which
> > I followed and it was an offer to buy a ver.10 upgrade for $55, so I
> > guess they get you one way or another. ;o)
> >
>
> Hi Kitt,
>
> The advert in the upgrade notice is something I've already said I find
> uncomfortable/unethical. I've never seen it done before Corel, and I don't
> at all like it. I hope they stop doing this. It is probably some kid in
> marketing who is too inexperienced to realize that people don't want spam,
> nor do they want trickery.



They gotta' justify that paycheck with all those razzle-dazzle
marketing ideas?



>
> Wow on your spyware check. Geesh that's a lot of spyware! Get ZoneAlarm Pro!
> It is worth every penny in my opinion.


Most of them were just cookies, but there were several applets. Now,
whether they'd been active in the recent past is another question
altogether, which maybe the Norton and MS products recognize?

I tend to do whatever is cheapest or free, since I've seen so many
instances where the top dogs fail and the top dog changes from day to
day, so I'm of the opinion one is usually little better than the next.
I run Avast antivirus (free) and MS Antispyware (free for now) and then
every so often I drop by Trend Micro for the free online scan which
catches something different now and then. This was the first time I
tried the Spyware scan, usually only doing the antivirus one. The
worst virus I ever experienced was while running McAfee and when I
worked for an ISP, I saw bad reports on many of the top brands, so
who's to say which is best. You read ten reviews and get ten different
answers, so I just go with free. Speaking of sneaky marketing tactics,
how 'bout them antivirus folks?

Kitt
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 9:57:20 PM

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

"Kitt" wrote
> I tend to do whatever is cheapest or free, since I've seen so many
> instances where the top dogs fail and the top dog changes from day to
> day, so I'm of the opinion one is usually little better than the next.
>

ZoneAlarm [regular] is free, and what I used prior to moving up to ZoneAlarm
Pro. One thing I like about the company is that if a new version (not just a
patch/update, but a whole new version) comes out while you are still under
license than you get the new version free of charge. Not too many, if any,
companies do that when they have a good product.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 5:46:32 AM

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

Oh yeah, I run Zone Alarm as my firewall.. 'cause like you said... it's
free. ;o) In fact, I could almost get away with Picasa 2 for
photography, because I'm lazy. PSP is the next best thing, since it's
about 20% or less of the cost of PSCS and is even cheaper than
Elements. I've been playing with computers for years and I've never
felt cheated by not having the latest and greatest. I've always been
able to find something to do the job nearly as well as the most popular
(and expensive) version of whatever, and in some cases the free or
cheap version has even been superior. I remember an early office suite
that MS sued out of existence called Mosaic Twin that I got for ten
bucks. There was a pre-GUI nesting menu system that was freeware that
beat anything that came along for a long time. Free news servers, free
E-mail online and off, newsreaders, browsers, games... just about
everything. The list goes on, but there's always been something to
satisfy my lust for cheap. Even though it hasn't always been the best
choice, most times the best and most expensive wouldn't have been
either. Now, if I could just find a free ten megapixel DSLR.

Kitt


Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Kitt" wrote
> > I tend to do whatever is cheapest or free, since I've seen so many
> > instances where the top dogs fail and the top dog changes from day to
> > day, so I'm of the opinion one is usually little better than the next.
> >
>
> ZoneAlarm [regular] is free, and what I used prior to moving up to ZoneAlarm
> Pro. One thing I like about the company is that if a new version (not just a
> patch/update, but a whole new version) comes out while you are still under
> license than you get the new version free of charge. Not too many, if any,
> companies do that when they have a good product.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
September 10, 2005 10:58:58 AM

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

Kitt wrote:

> ... but there's always been something to satisfy my lust for cheap.


What does this say about your friends?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:10:37 PM

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

Jer wrote:
> Kitt wrote:
>
> > ... but there's always been something to satisfy my lust for cheap.
>
>
> What does this say about your friends?


Who can afford friends?


>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
September 11, 2005 12:05:15 AM

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

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
news:yaEUe.528$hW.224@tor-nn1...
>
>
> Do you know of any Antivirus programs that are free but really good?

I've had excellent results with AVG (www.grisoft.com). There is a free
edition for personal use, and it has regular updates to the virus
signatures--oftentimes at the rate of several new updates per day.

It scans incoming emails before you open them (I don't remember whether
McAfee did that, or waited until I actually tried to open the attachments.
I switched to AVG 2 years ago, and my recollection of McAfee is hazy these
days). As email-borne viruses are probably the most common method of
infection, that feature is needed. AVG has stripped out virus-laden
attachments and encrypted them in what it calls its "Virus Vault," before
the email was finished downloading. Once in the "Virus Vault," the infected
file may be securely deleted or may be restored (I can't imagine why anyone
would want to do that). I have been saved from attack several dozen times
since I switched to AVG. It has never allowed a virus past its defenses.

It also uses heuristic analysis, to search for suspicious code. This
increases the chance that it will find new viruses that haven't yet been
identified, and have not been given a signature update. AVG says that they
believe that this feature cuts in half the number of unidentified new
viruses that slip past the scanner. Again, I have never had a viral
infection with AVG, and there have been many days that they have updated
their signature database as often as four or five times in a single day, as
new variants have been identified.

It also allows the user to create "Rescue Disks" which can be used to scan
and/or disinfect a computer. I first used that feature when my computer got
a worm via email. McAfee, which was supposedly running in the background,
let it in, and it immediately infected the other 2 machines on my home LAN.
I did a Google search on an uninfected machine, looking for "Free
Anti-Virus" applications, I found AVG, downloaded it, made the rescue disks
and booted up each computer from them, in turn. AVG identified numerous
system files that had become infected, deleted them, and then told me to
reinstall Windows. I did, and each machine functioned without a hitch. The
FREE anti-virus application succeeded, after my COMMERCIAL application
failed. Go figure . . .

Their web site has a link to an independent testing company, and AVG seems
to be on a par with McAfee and Norton in terms of its effectiveness. While
it may have its critics, all I can report is that it has NEVER failed me, it
has NEVER hung my system, it has frequent updates, both of the virus
signature database and of the scanning engine itself, and it can be set to
automatically download updates (so the user does not forget) as often as
once per day. Manual updates can also be done whenever desired, and
requires merely two mouse clicks of the AVG tray icon--they couldn't make it
any easier.

I recommend AVG without hesitation, as a product that does the same, if not
better, job than do the commercial products (AVG is a commercial
product--businesses and non-profit agencies are required to pay for it, and
to pay an annual subscription fee. Individuals using it for home computers
get it for free).

It is nice to be able to wholeheartedly recommend a product. AVG will
probably satisfy your requirements for the long term. This is one mission
critical app that I would pay to use, if it weren't free. Try it. I'm
betting you'll keep it. It has no surprises--it just works.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 12:05:16 AM

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

"Jeremy" wrote
> It is nice to be able to wholeheartedly recommend a product. AVG will
> probably satisfy your requirements for the long term. This is one mission
> critical app that I would pay to use, if it weren't free. Try it. I'm
> betting you'll keep it. It has no surprises--it just works.
Wow, Jeremy, thanks so much for not only recommending a product, but also
for taking the time to detail why you make the recommendation. I still have
time left on my NA license, but as soon at I get the warning of expiry I'll
uninstall and install AVG to give it a whirl. I've saved your email so I can
refer to it when I download AVG.

Take care, and thanks again!
Linda
September 11, 2005 1:56:50 AM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:05:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
> news:yaEUe.528$hW.224@tor-nn1...
> >
> >
> > Do you know of any Antivirus programs that are free but really good?
>
> I've had excellent results with AVG (www.grisoft.com). There is a free
> edition for personal use, and it has regular updates to the virus
> signatures--oftentimes at the rate of several new updates per day.

I'd second that, excellent program.
--
David: NorthWest England
Claim nothing;enjoy
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 5:16:29 PM

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

>"Kitt" wrote
>
>> Jer wrote:
>> What does this say about your friends?
>
>
> Who can afford friends?
>

LOL, clever comeback.

Hmm friends are expensive! That's why it pays to keep only the good ones.


Take care,
Linda
!