Joel wrote:

>> While I don't like installing net framework any more than anyone else, if
>> you want a free Windows Photoshop replacement app that it both _easy_ and
>> quite functional (in terms of what you do most), you can't beat this app.
>> <https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases> current version 5.03
>
> Many thanks, I didn't know about this app, I have installed it, and
> will give it a try next time I need an image editor.

Hi Joel,

Wow. I'm impressed. You actually installed the free Photoshop replacement!
<https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases> current version 5.03

As an aside, I see Microsoft upped the price of that _free_ Photoshop
replacement from $8 (last I had checked) to $10 (which is kind of funny).
<https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/paintnet/9NBHCS1LX4R0>

Most people (a) don't install any of the suggested apps (usually because
they're scared) & (b) don't follow up with the lurkers so that all benefit.
<https://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html>

Many thanks to you for owning & displaying courteous Usenet manners.
<https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/121643-paintnet-50-is-now-available/>

While I have installed _every_ free image/photo editor ever suggested on
the Windows and digital photo newsgroups (which I've been on for decades),
I mostly use a combination of two tools, on Windows, for managing photos,
where you'll note that Irfanview is always the first program to use because
of its speed & versatility, particularly of Irfanview batch commands, and
it's ability to easily crop, resize, and (with the Paint plugin) angle.

That free Photoshop replacement tool, Paint.NET, has been around for
decades, so it too has plenty of plugins, but I don't normally use them.

The _three_ things most image editors make too hard though, are the three
things that Paint.NET gets right, which makes it the go-to tool for them.
1. Crop and size the screenshot
2. Text the screenshot (with and without underlying white space)
3. Easily circle and arrow as needed to highlight sections

Bearing in mind _every_ image/photo editor can list those features, what
this free Photoshop replacement tools does that is different is it makes
those tasks (and many others) super easy to do - which is what matters.

Try, for example, those three things in Irfanview, and while the
"automatic" cropping in Irfanview (control+y and control+shift+y) is
stellar, the constrained (pick a certain point to start & end) is not.

The texting and arrowing and circling in Irfanvew (or The GIMP for that
matter), is literally atrocious compared to how easy it is to do those
common things in the Photoshop freeware that I had pointed you to today.

Please do let the rest of us know how it goes for you, whether good or bad,
because what I care about it to learn from others, and to help others, and,
when an Apple newsgroup is involved, to show the iKooks for what they are.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to thank Joel for testing out Paint.NET freeware.

--
このメールは、アバスト アンチウイルス ソフトウェアでウイルス チェックされています。
www.avast.com

Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>>> While I don't like installing net framework any more than anyone else, if
>>> you want a free Windows Photoshop replacement app that it both _easy_ and
>>> quite functional (in terms of what you do most), you can't beat this app.
>>> <https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases> current version 5.03
>>
>> Many thanks, I didn't know about this app, I have installed it, and
>> will give it a try next time I need an image editor.
>
>Hi Joel,
>
>Wow. I'm impressed. You actually installed the free Photoshop replacement!
> <https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases> current version 5.03

Honestly, I'm not sure why that is really *that* impressive, if I was
bitching about Windows' two Paint apps, and GIMP, it's pretty obvious
I'd want to take a look at your GitHub app.

>As an aside, I see Microsoft upped the price of that _free_ Photoshop
>replacement from $8 (last I had checked) to $10 (which is kind of funny).
> <https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/paintnet/9NBHCS1LX4R0>

That means you're doing a public service, by sharing the GitHub info,
hopefully more will find out about it, before getting ripped off.

>Most people (a) don't install any of the suggested apps (usually because
>they're scared) & (b) don't follow up with the lurkers so that all benefit.
> <https://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html>

Well, a GitHub link is golden, but a sketchy way to run a badly
outdated edition of Photoshop isn't so much so.

>Many thanks to you for owning & displaying courteous Usenet manners.

Oh, believe me, I may have gotten on your case a little in this
thread, but I *do* appreciate the link to paint.net.

>Please do let the rest of us know how it goes for you, whether good or bad,
>because what I care about it to learn from others, and to help others, and,
>when an Apple newsgroup is involved, to show the iKooks for what they are.

Will do. I actually have a friend over, at the moment, who is going
to use my scanner. We will give paint.net the first shot at working
with it, as needed.

>--
>Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
>which, in this case, is to thank Joel for testing out Paint.NET freeware.

It's my favorite type of software. I don't have Microsoft Office,
even though I'm so into having the latest and greatest Windows. I
have never even seen Photoshop in the flesh, I know it's highly rated,
but I have a grudge with Adobe. And I am not going to pirate it,
either. I would use Paint/Paint 3D/GIMP/paint.net until I was blue in
the face, if that's what it took, to avoid paying so much to a company
that doesn't deserve it.

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

>>Wow. I'm impressed. You actually installed the free Photoshop replacement!
>> <https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases> current version 5.03
>
> Honestly, I'm not sure why that is really *that* impressive, if I was
> bitching about Windows' two Paint apps, and GIMP, it's pretty obvious
> I'd want to take a look at your GitHub app.

Well, I'm used to iKooks Joel. I don't know if you know of Alan Baker, for
example, but he told me for weeks on end that it's impossible to change the
headers in a Usenet message... I mean... seriously... iKooks are stupid.

Take Snit, for example... he _still_ thinks this is about decibels!
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> iKooks can't even see the fatal flaw!\

Take nospam, for example.
He's nothing but a liar in almost all ways.

He's never written a line of code in his life and yet he's a
self-proclaimed developer (and yet he too didn't know the difference
between a megabit and a decibel even as he said he could write the code
that doesn't exist on the Apple app store to graph signal strength).

Point is... the bar to be impressed is pretty low on an Apple newsgroup.

>>As an aside, I see Microsoft upped the price of that _free_ Photoshop
>>replacement from $8 (last I had checked) to $10 (which is kind of funny).
>> <https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/paintnet/9NBHCS1LX4R0>
>
> That means you're doing a public service, by sharing the GitHub info,
> hopefully more will find out about it, before getting ripped off.

Well, to be clear, everyone knows this on the freeware and Windows ng.
Also on the digital newsgroup. But still, it's good to be reminded.
>>Most people (a) don't install any of the suggested apps (usually because
>>they're scared) & (b) don't follow up with the lurkers so that all benefit.
>> <https://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html>
>
> Well, a GitHub link is golden, but a sketchy way to run a badly
> outdated edition of Photoshop isn't so much so.

I've done both.
I agree with you.

It's not so much that it's "sketchy" to run Photoshop as it is that you
need to google like crazy to find _old_ Photoshop tutorials to learn how to
use it.

IMHO, PhotoShop is not like Paint.NET where you don't need a tutorial to
learn it (and yes, I know nospam will use that to claim I'm stupid just for
expressing my heartfelt opinion).

What's _great_ about Paint.NET is it's a pretty good Photoshop equivalent
for most things that you do - without the complexity & cost of PhotoShop.

>>Many thanks to you for owning & displaying courteous Usenet manners.
>
> Oh, believe me, I may have gotten on your case a little in this
> thread, but I *do* appreciate the link to paint.net.

I've been on Usenet for decades.
Nothing anyone can say will ever hurt my feelings.

The Apple newsgroups are especially infantile and nothing they say can ever
bother me. I just don't like that they're all like this guy, that's all.
<https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

Those iKooks are too stupid to realize how incredibly stupid they are.
>>Please do let the rest of us know how it goes for you, whether good or bad,
>>because what I care about it to learn from others, and to help others, and,
>>when an Apple newsgroup is involved, to show the iKooks for what they are.
>
> Will do. I actually have a friend over, at the moment, who is going
> to use my scanner. We will give paint.net the first shot at working
> with it, as needed.

Good luck. Glad to have helped out.
>>Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
>>which, in this case, is to thank Joel for testing out Paint.NET freeware.
>
> It's my favorite type of software. I don't have Microsoft Office,
> even though I'm so into having the latest and greatest Windows.

I use an old copy of Office 2007 which suits me just fine.
I have 2010 and 2016, but I rarely use it.

Microsoft gave me all of them for free (and Microsoft, believe it or not,
installed the 2007 for me in 2017... they logged in and did it for me).

Since I don't make stuff up like the iKooks do, it's one of these links:
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/G18Kf8y0wDE/m/5FtKkt7QBgAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/H4j9hfbsHa4/m/-kpc6d3QBgAJ>

I'll dig deeper if you need me to, but my point is all software
functionality is free if you're intelligent.

And all software functionality costs money if you're not.

It has always been that way.

If someone is like Snit, Rod Speed, Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Lewis, nospam,
Haemactylus, Dustin Cook, et al., everything costs them money because they
can't think for themselves - they let the marketing people feed them.

Marketing isn't gonna let you get away with anything for free. :)
Just like Paint.NET costs $10 if you don't know to get it from Github.

Who is that stupid?
I don't know but I'd bet the iKooks are all that stupid.

They actually _feel safer_ doing exactly what MARKETING feeds them to do.

> I
> have never even seen Photoshop in the flesh, I know it's highly rated,
> but I have a grudge with Adobe. And I am not going to pirate it,
> either. I would use Paint/Paint 3D/GIMP/paint.net until I was blue in
> the face, if that's what it took, to avoid paying so much to a company
> that doesn't deserve it.

Oh, Photoshop is damn good stuff. But it's complicated. And expensive.

BTW, did you know that MS PAINT is (kind of sort of) inside of Irfanview?

Just press the F12 key. I use it all the time, particularly for
straightening scanned documents along the side borders.

That Irfanview F12 straightening tool for scanned documents works damn well
if you ask me.

Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>>>Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
>>>which, in this case, is to thank Joel for testing out Paint.NET freeware.
>>
>> It's my favorite type of software. I don't have Microsoft Office,
>> even though I'm so into having the latest and greatest Windows.
>
>I use an old copy of Office 2007 which suits me just fine.
>I have 2010 and 2016, but I rarely use it.
>
>Microsoft gave me all of them for free (and Microsoft, believe it or not,
>installed the 2007 for me in 2017... they logged in and did it for me).
>
>Since I don't make stuff up like the iKooks do, it's one of these links:
> <https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/G18Kf8y0wDE/m/5FtKkt7QBgAJ>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/H4j9hfbsHa4/m/-kpc6d3QBgAJ>

If I wanted Office, I'd pay for the 365 subscription. But I
*genuinely* prefer LibreOffice. I haven't donated to the project, nor
OpenOffice previously, because I haven't used it extensively, but I
always install it. I did give $20 to GIMP, even though I had some
issues using it, because I thought I really would end up using it
more, but now I'm thinking paint.net will probably be better.

>I'll dig deeper if you need me to, but my point is all software
>functionality is free if you're intelligent.
>
>And all software functionality costs money if you're not.
>
>It has always been that way.
>
>If someone is like Snit, Rod Speed, Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Lewis, nospam,
>Haemactylus, Dustin Cook, et al., everything costs them money because they
>can't think for themselves - they let the marketing people feed them.
>
>Marketing isn't gonna let you get away with anything for free. :)
>Just like Paint.NET costs $10 if you don't know to get it from Github.
>
>Who is that stupid?
>I don't know but I'd bet the iKooks are all that stupid.
>
>They actually _feel safer_ doing exactly what MARKETING feeds them to do.

Well, there's a difference between paying the Microsoft Store for an
app they can get as freeware, and paying for actual commercial
software. I don't have a problem doing that if it's something I'll
get real use out of, from a company I don't mind doing business with
(unlike Adobe).

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> If I wanted Office, I'd pay for the 365 subscription. But I
> *genuinely* prefer LibreOffice. I haven't donated to the project, nor
> OpenOffice previously, because I haven't used it extensively, but I
> always install it. I did give $20 to GIMP, even though I had some
> issues using it, because I thought I really would end up using it
> more, but now I'm thinking paint.net will probably be better.

As I said, I test software.
It's what I do.

Testing software comes naturally to me.
I've tested _every_ free office suite available on Windows & Linux.

They all work.
But none of them are truly "compatible" with MS Office.

As for Paint.NET, I hope you like it, but if you haven't used PhotoShop,
you won't know that much of it is a carbon copy of the PhotoShip GUI.

I like Paint.NET for what it does for me (curved arrows, texting, and
drawing circles and boxes, which you can see in all my edited shots).
<https://i.postimg.cc/1tvysJY1/as01.jpg> code working on phone
<https://i.postimg.cc/nLRWdFB1/as02.jpg> code working in Genymotion
<https://i.postimg.cc/65NKJvkt/as03.jpg> Google emulator fails on AMD CPU
<https://i.postimg.cc/QCQRxf2s/as04.jpg> Google emulator always offline
<https://i.postimg.cc/qB2fL7zY/as05.jpg> Google emulator always times out
<https://i.postimg.cc/02vTHqSN/as06.jpg> Hyper-V off doesn't matter
<https://i.postimg.cc/Fsx2MnbV/as07.jpg> Hyper-V on doesn't matter
<https://i.postimg.cc/NLq9GJvg/as08.jpg> msinfo32 expected results
<https://i.postimg.cc/QdP2wcgX/as09.jpg> GApps bugs

>>They actually _feel safer_ doing exactly what MARKETING feeds them to do.
>
> Well, there's a difference between paying the Microsoft Store for an
> app they can get as freeware, and paying for actual commercial
> software. I don't have a problem doing that if it's something I'll
> get real use out of, from a company I don't mind doing business with
> (unlike Adobe).

You said some things that I think are sketchy since you based them on an
irrational fear of the unknown, which is what the iKooks do daily.

For example, you said the PhotoShop deal was "sketchy" but the software is
the real deal, so there's no "danger" to using that software (other than
it's old, of course). I used it to test it and it worked just fine.

People who make _all_ their decisions based on far are those who fall prey
to MARKETING. I don't know if you know cars, but I'm an old guy so I
learned cars when they were all metal and had four barrel carbs and
points and distributors, and the like.

Whenever someone sells a "tuneup" they always sell fear, as if a car even
_needs_ a tuneup (in the traditional sense of the word) nowadays.

I mount and balance my own tires at home Joel, and if you don't believe me,
I can point to the links on rec.autos.tech and alt.home repair. Same with
brake jobs, cooling system overhauls, transmission clutch replacements,
etc.

If you listen to the marketing people, they tell you all sorts of things
about the rotors, the tires, the pads, all of which is complete bullshit.

What matters most for friction materials is cold and hot friction, which,
guess what, is imprinted on every single passenger pad ever sold in the
USA.

You can't guess how many people who claim to "understand brake pads" don't
know that simple fact, Joel, where I'm on a crusade against stupidity.

Your statement that the link was to a Usenet thread, for example, is
something the ignorant iKooks say all the time, Joel. It's like telling me
you can't tell the cold/hot friction of a brake pad just by looking at it.

You can.
If you're intelligent.

Same with tires. I can tell you, just by reading teh sidewall, tons about a
tire that isn't in the marketing brochure on that tire, Joel.

Because I'm not stupid.
That's my point about the M1/M2, Joel.

If you don't even know what EVERYONE KNOWS about the M1/M2 (i.e., their
unpatchable flaws), then you know absolutely nothing about the M1/M2.

All you'd know is the marketing bullshit.
And Apple is never going to tell the truth.

You must know that.
Don't you?

Anyway, a classic trait of the iKooks is they do a lot of the stupid things
you did, and that's why I got frustrated with you.

You can't say all facts are wrong when you're ignorant of all of them.
You can't say a thread doesn't have references when you don't click the
link.

What you _can_ disagree with is not the facts but my assessment of those
facts. That's fair game which teh iKooks can't comprehend.

An example of a fact is Apple made a big deal about a yellow iPhone.
That's just a fact.

The iKooks _hate_ that fact.
But it's still a fact whether or not the iKooks like that fact.

An example of an ASSESEMENT of that fact is that it's a marketing gimmick.
Maybe it is. Maybe it's not.

You may not like my assessments of facts, and that's OK.
Adults put different weight on different things.

But you should NEVER disagree with the facts unless you know something I
don't know (and so far, you have not). that's what the iKooks do.

But they're so stupid, they don't even know how stupid they are.
Don't be like them and we'll get along just fine.

I respect intelligence as much as I dislike ignorance.

Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>You said some things that I think are sketchy since you based them on an
>irrational fear of the unknown, which is what the iKooks do daily.
>
>For example, you said the PhotoShop deal was "sketchy" but the software is
>the real deal, so there's no "danger" to using that software (other than
>it's old, of course). I used it to test it and it worked just fine.

nospam proved that Adobe is not intending people to take advantage of
this old version to pirate it, but for people who own a license for it
to be able to use it despite its age. Thus, there are multiple
reasons I wouldn't use it.

--
Joel Crump

On Sun, 02 Apr 2023 20:46:50 -0400, Joel wrote:

> If I wanted Office, I'd pay for the 365 subscription. But I *genuinely*
> prefer LibreOffice.

I've had problems with LibreOffice but they're all on me. I only use it to
annotate docx files sent to me and don't do too well sometimes. I also use
LibreCalc if someone sends me a spreadsheet but I'm even worse the
spreadsheets.

My world is gVim, VisualStudio, and VS Code, not office products.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> That's the cost of doing business for those who absolutely rely on
> Photoshop etc to make a living. For the rest of us, thankfully there are
> cheaper alternatives.

...intelligence...
FACT:
The free PhotoShop replacement tool on Windows is $10 from Microsoft
<https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/paintnet/9NBHCS1LX4R0>

FACT:
But _intelligent_ people can get the same FOSS software from Github.
<https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases>

ASSESSMENT:
Only a fool buys PhotoShop if/when a free replacement serves their needs.
<https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/122276-paintnet-503-is-now-available/>

CAVEAT:
Most fools don't own the intelligence to know a FOSS replacement exists.

...intelligence...

On 4/04/2023 10:56 am, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> That's the cost of doing business for those who absolutely rely on
>> Photoshop etc to make a living. For the rest of us, thankfully there are
>> cheaper alternatives.
>
>                     ...intelligence... FACT: The free PhotoShop
> replacement tool on Windows is $10 from Microsoft
> <https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/paintnet/9NBHCS1LX4R0>
>
> FACT:
> But _intelligent_ people can get the same FOSS software from Github.
> <https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases>
>
> ASSESSMENT:
> Only a fool buys PhotoShop if/when a free replacement serves their needs.
> <https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/122276-paintnet-503-is-now-available/>
>
> CAVEAT:
> Most fools don't own the intelligence to know a FOSS replacement exists.
>
>                     ...intelligence...

Glad you have a stiffy for cheap/freeware, but FFS give it a rest ....

geoff

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 23:56:10 +0100, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> FACT:
> The free PhotoShop replacement tool

sounds like an exaggeration...

Davinci Resolve is available.

--
-v

geoff wrote:

> Glad you have a stiffy for cheap/freeware, but FFS give it a rest ....

I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
<https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

It's really not about freeware when you keep in mind that Apple is
brilliant at separating the clueless Apple customer base from their money.

You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.\

Apple profits alone, tell you how unfathomably clueless the Apple customer
is, although the fact Apple customers are gullible is proven when you look
at how Apple advertises a release by how many emoji they managed to writge
in six months (basically three emoji a month is Apple's coding output).

This unfathamably ignorant customer base extends to Apple's hardware, where
we saw in this thread NOBODY who owned the M1 knew a single thing about it.

Nobody.
Not even one child-like Apple poster understood a single thing of the M1.

When you look at how successful Apple is without spending anything on R&D,
it tells you how shockingly stupid the Apple customer base is.

I mean, yellow iPhones? WTF? That's the biggest hardware change Apple could
come up with after a year of desperation with the iPhone 14?

You have to be kidding, right?

You'd be hard pressed to find a customer base more shockingly ignorant than
the Apple customer base - which is easily shown by the Usenet ng sample
here.

So, yeah.

I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
<https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

In article <u0h3dg$3m7hl$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> I mean, yellow iPhones? WTF? That's the biggest hardware change Apple could
> come up with after a year of desperation with the iPhone 14?

math is hard.

vallor wrote:

> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>
>> FACT:
>> The free PhotoShop replacement tool
>
>sounds like an exaggeration...
>
>Davinci Resolve is available.

This reminds me of the idiots/assholes (cola trolls) that couldn't
understand the importance of choice.

Not everyone is best-off with the "best" product, in *any* market.
Indeed no market has a "best" product.

All products have pros and cons, and are beaten in some area by
another product. Even *if* the price difference is ignored.

--
"Specifically, [Linux advocates] whine about how Photoshop costs 600
and is a waste, while claiming that the same capabilities can be
accomplished for free." - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Not everyone is best-off with the "best" product, in *any* market.
>Indeed no market has a "best" product.
>
>All products have pros and cons, and are beaten in some area by
>another product. Even *if* the price difference is ignored.

True, certainly my computer is well suited to run Photoshop, but yet,
even the personal use edition another poster mentioned is not a
trivial expense. Clearly, there are other apps that could potentially
do what I need, and it'd be dumb not to at least try to utilize them.

--
Joel Crump

On 4/04/2023 11:58 pm, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>
>> Glad you have a stiffy for cheap/freeware, but FFS give it a rest ....
>
> I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
> they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>
>
> It's really not about freeware when you keep in mind that Apple is
> brilliant at separating the clueless Apple customer base from their money.
>
> You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.\
>
> Apple profits alone, tell you how unfathomably clueless the Apple customer
> is, although the fact Apple customers are gullible is proven when you look
> at how Apple advertises a release by how many emoji they managed to writge
> in six months (basically three emoji a month is Apple's coding output).
>
> This unfathamably ignorant customer base extends to Apple's hardware, where
> we saw in this thread NOBODY who owned the M1 knew a single thing about it.
>
> Nobody.
> Not even one child-like Apple poster understood a single thing of the M1.
>
> When you look at how successful Apple is without spending anything on R&D,
> it tells you how shockingly stupid the Apple customer base is.
>
> I mean, yellow iPhones? WTF? That's the biggest hardware change Apple could
> come up with after a year of desperation with the iPhone 14?
>
> You have to be kidding, right?
>
> You'd be hard pressed to find a customer base more shockingly ignorant than
> the Apple customer base - which is easily shown by the Usenet ng sample
> here.
>
> So, yeah.
> I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
> they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

You made you point long ago, and harping on and on is simply detracting
from it, not reinforcing it.

geogg.

geoff wrote:

>On 4/04/2023 11:58 pm, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Glad you have a stiffy for cheap/freeware, but FFS give it a rest ....
>>
>> I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
>> they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
>> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>
>>
>> It's really not about freeware when you keep in mind that Apple is
>> brilliant at separating the clueless Apple customer base from their money.
>>
>> You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.\
>>
>> Apple profits alone, tell you how unfathomably clueless the Apple customer
>> is, although the fact Apple customers are gullible is proven when you look
>> at how Apple advertises a release by how many emoji they managed to writge
>> in six months (basically three emoji a month is Apple's coding output).
>>
>> This unfathamably ignorant customer base extends to Apple's hardware, where
>> we saw in this thread NOBODY who owned the M1 knew a single thing about it.
>>
>> Nobody.
>> Not even one child-like Apple poster understood a single thing of the M1.
>>
>> When you look at how successful Apple is without spending anything on R&D,
>> it tells you how shockingly stupid the Apple customer base is.
>>
>> I mean, yellow iPhones? WTF? That's the biggest hardware change Apple could
>> come up with after a year of desperation with the iPhone 14?
>>
>> You have to be kidding, right?
>>
>> You'd be hard pressed to find a customer base more shockingly ignorant than
>> the Apple customer base - which is easily shown by the Usenet ng sample
>> here.
>>
>> So, yeah.
>> I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
>> they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
>> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>
>
>You made you point long ago, and harping on and on is simply detracting
>from it, not reinforcing it.

Not to mention the lies.

"Not even one child-like Apple poster understood a single thing of the
M1."

Really? Not a single thing?

--
"Yah, right, like I'm going to spend the big bucks to get the latest
version [Photoshop] when I have a version I'm familiar with and a free
hacked and cracked key so I can install it anywhere." - "Greg Hall",
scumbag software pirate

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>--
>"Yah, right, like I'm going to spend the big bucks to get the latest
>version [Photoshop] when I have a version I'm familiar with and a free
>hacked and cracked key so I can install it anywhere." - "Greg Hall",
>scumbag software pirate

I sympathize with people of little means resorting to software piracy,
lord knows it's just an inevitability, but people bragging about doing
it here, on Usenet, tend to just be greedy. If I don't want to pay
for software, but I have the means to, then I shouldn't use it.

--
Joel Crump

On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 9:21:33 am UTC+10, Joel wrote:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >--
> >"Yah, right, like I'm going to spend the big bucks to get the latest
> >version [Photoshop] when I have a version I'm familiar with and a free
> >hacked and cracked key so I can install it anywhere." - "Greg Hall",
> >scumbag software pirate
> I sympathize with people of little means resorting to software piracy,
> lord knows it's just an inevitability, but people bragging about doing
> it here, on Usenet, tend to just be greedy. If I don't want to pay
> for software, but I have the means to, then I shouldn't use it.
>
> --
> Joel Crump

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, while Mr Adobe's software-for-rent scheme is not my favourite method of acquiring a program, the photography package (Photoshop + Lightroom + Camera Raw) is not exactly an impost on most. Here in the Greater Antipodes, it's currently worth about 3 take-away coffees per month and is hardly likely to break the bank when looked at in the light of what you've already invested in camera bodies, lenses and other photographic kit. As an exercise for the reader, compare it to the cost of photo paper, developer, fixer and other darkroom supplies from yesteryear (yes, I'm that old, and am glad to have moved on).

Also, on the topic of 'paint.net as a Photoshop replacement'.... really? Yes I use it to do quick and dirty stuff and it's really handy for that, but as a replacement? No thanks.

As for GIMP, I think it's a great idea and I applaud its developer/s, but it's got a really steep learning curve. I've had a go at it on a number of occasions to see if it offered something different, but the effort to learn something completely new when I already have a solution that works is not something that appeals.

Happy Easter to those who celebrate. May the Easter Bilby visit you with chocolatey goodness.

Cheers,
Magani

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 12:58:48 UTC+1, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>
> > Glad you have a stiffy for cheap/freeware, but FFS give it a rest ....
> I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
> they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.
> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>
>
> It's really not about freeware when you keep in mind that Apple is
> brilliant at separating the clueless Apple customer base from their money.

I've not needed to be parted from my money after buying Apple but I have about 92 PC's in my lab
and we''ve had to part with lots of money from office and hardware and software support.
I'm still using an 11 year old iMac the 4 year old PCs in the lab are suffering from burn-in screens adn we've had about 4 fail since xmas
and a few more might need replacing shortly.
>
> You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.\

Yes you can by giving them what you want.
Same with Gucci handbags, rolex watches, Porsche cars and many other profitable companies .
Why do people wear gold on their fingers when a plastic ring in much cheaper, or even splash out on a curtain ring.

> Apple profits alone, tell you how unfathomably clueless the Apple customer
> is, although the fact Apple customers are gullible is proven when you look
> at how Apple advertises a release by how many emoji they managed to writge
> in six months (basically three emoji a month is Apple's coding output).

I'd hardly call emoji's coding.

>
> This unfathamably ignorant customer base extends to Apple's hardware, where
> we saw in this thread NOBODY who owned the M1 knew a single thing about it.

I doubt you could prove that, but then again the average PC user needs to buy anti-virus software to keep them safe, becaus ethey know so little
about their computer is it ?

>
> Nobody.
> Not even one child-like Apple poster understood a single thing of the M1.

They shouldn't need to.
I bet very few people that take airline flights know much about the enginbes that power modern jet aircraft/

I bet you can't tell us how the universe was created.
I bet yuo don't even know the processes in your body that converts foor to energy and shit.
But you certainly know how to talk shit.

>
> When you look at how successful Apple is without spending anything on R&D,

They spend a lot on R&D they designed their own processors like the M1 series.
They don;t use standard packing creates like most PC users do.

> it tells you how shockingly stupid the Apple customer base is.

Not as stupid as those that by a PC and get viruses from porn sites.

>
> I mean, yellow iPhones? WTF? That's the biggest hardware change Apple could
> come up with after a year of desperation with the iPhone 14?

Better than samsung faking moon photos to make their phones take 'better ' pictures.

you only have to update equipment when your designs and technology are too old for a customer to want to buy.

Few people would buy a new car every month or even every year.

Some people doget their cars painted or wrapped but whay ?

>
> You have to be kidding, right?

>
> You'd be hard pressed to find a customer base more shockingly ignorant than
> the Apple customer base - which is easily shown by the Usenet ng sample
> here.

Go over to one of the PC users groups and you'll find much more stupidity and clueless ness.

>
> So, yeah.
>
> I'm trying to _educate_ this unfathomably ignorant Apple customer base that
> they're paying through the nose for what _intelligent_ people don't.

I don;t need a penis extention like a sports car or a rolex watch.

> <https://img.yumpu.com/6936343/1/500x640/standouts-the-beat-within.jpg>

On 4/4/2023 6:21:26 PM, Joel wrote:

>>"Yah, right, like I'm going to spend the big bucks to get the latest
>>version [Photoshop] when I have a version I'm familiar with and a free
>>hacked and cracked key so I can install it anywhere." - "Greg Hall",
>>scumbag software pirate
>
> I sympathize with people of little means resorting to software piracy,
> lord knows it's just an inevitability, but people bragging about doing
> it here, on Usenet, tend to just be greedy. If I don't want to pay
> for software, but I have the means to, then I shouldn't use it.

Where is this piracy?
Where is your logic?

Both are missing.
Do you make this stuff up only because you can't understand logic?

The guy says he hates PhotoShop and he says he doesn't use it.
I doubt he'd pirate it when he says he loves paintnet instead.

What's wrong with your logic?
Did you buy your high school degree at the pet store?

Dean Hoffman <deanhofman@clod.com> wrote:

>> I sympathize with people of little means resorting to software piracy,
>> lord knows it's just an inevitability, but people bragging about doing
>> it here, on Usenet, tend to just be greedy. If I don't want to pay
>> for software, but I have the means to, then I shouldn't use it.
>
>Where is this piracy?
>Where is your logic?
>
>Both are missing.
>Do you make this stuff up only because you can't understand logic?
>
>The guy says he hates PhotoShop and he says he doesn't use it.
>I doubt he'd pirate it when he says he loves paintnet instead.
>
>What's wrong with your logic?
>Did you buy your high school degree at the pet store?

Are you stoned, or something? Obviously, if I were into polluting my
Windows with pirated commercial software (hint: Microsoft does know),
I could get Photoshop for "free", but suffice to say that if I really
felt I needed it, I'd buy it.

--
Joel Crump