DO write your question more clearly.

The "properties thing" -- by that do you mean you have
attempted to select in the GUI and alter file attributes
using right-click, Properties, uncheck Read Only?
Or do you mean you used the DOS suggestion from
a command prompt?

By "it" you mean a message received from the operating
system when executing one of the above (or below)
suggestions? If so, it would be helpful if you described
the steps you took and the exact message received.

By "everything" do you mean the image files you are
attempting to access, or every file on your data drive?

I can imagine. It must be quite tough at your end.

You may want to post this within the main thread.

Toby -

I wouldn't even bother attempting to reason with the fool. He's nothing
but a troll, and a poor one at that. (And he doesn't even own any version
of Photoshop, nor even Elements, as he was too hard up for cash when his
demo ran out.) His committment to freeware is wallet-driven, despite his
claims to a higher-minded philosophy.

He's certainly no one any company would want shilling their product -
he's an idiot and proves it at every turn. Save your breath, my friend.


--
Sally Beacham / www.dizteq.com
www.lvsonline.com / PSP, Filter Frenzy, Xara X
FilterMunky / www.psppower.com
reply to sbeachamATdizteq.com

I bought this video. It has a little about the tablet, it is far more
about how to re-touch photos in Photoshop. They use a tablet, but you
could just as easily use a mouse for most of these techniques.

Really? Does your "god" bless you as you steal?

Nothing like flexible morality, I always say.

--
Sally Beacham / www.dizteq.com
www.lvsonline.com / PSP, Filter Frenzy, Xara X
FilterMunky / www.psppower.com
reply to sbeachamATdizteq.com

No. Unless you count a slightly different splash screen.

No.

Yes.


--
Sally Beacham / www.dizteq.com
www.lvsonline.com / PSP, Filter Frenzy, Xara X
FilterMunky / www.psppower.com
reply to sbeachamATdizteq.com

This makes one wonder. If you acquired the program legally while you
were a student, can you then not legally continue to use it on your
home PC/Mac after you have taken your exams and started working?

--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

I think the rationale is - you purchase software at an academic discount
while you are learning it. Once you become commercially viable, shall we
say - that is, you are producing work that you get compensated for, then you
should be buying a commercial license.

Soooooooooooooo.... can't speak to the legality of using your academic
version on your home computer, but I don't believe your license to use it
for academic purposes is revoked when you are no longer technically a
student.


--
Sally Beacham / www.dizteq.com
www.lvsonline.com / PSP, Filter Frenzy, Xara X
FilterMunky / www.psppower.com
reply to sbeachamATdizteq.com

--

Hecate
[Email Removed] (Fried computers a specialty)

Your last sentence betrays the fact that you've never tried to do
photoretouching, or any complicated image working with a tablet as
opposed to a rodent. Rodents are fine for screen level work (though I
prefer trackballs) but for anything detailed rodents are far too
clumsy.

--

Hecate
[Email Removed] (Fried computers a specialty)

Clear, and wrong. If you have two disks capable of 52 MB/s, on the same
ribbon on an ATA100 controller, they can be accessed simultaneously at a
total of about 90 MB/s. If the same two files are accessed on a single
drive, in separate partitions, the total read speed will drop to about 5
MB/s, and total write speed about 25 MB/s (lazy writes save the day).
Mixed access will be somewhere in-between.

On separate disks, *and* separate ribbons, the most you can hope to
achieve is 104 MB/s. What is 90 MB/s closer to; 5 MB/s, or 104 MB/s?

For all intents and purposes, there is no significant bottleneck to
having two hard disks on separate controllers, unless one of them is
*very* stupid, or broken. CDROMs are another story; a CDROM can stop a
hard disk on the same ribbon from being accessed for up to several
seconds while it is spinning up.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <[Email Removed]>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

That was my understanding too.

By definition, "home" should not be a "production environment" even if
one happens to earn some money from what one is doing there. If the
program was subsequently loaded and used on an employer's machine at
work it would presumably be different.

Anyone can confirm with certainty that it can be used at home for
infinity after one has finished the studies? Surely Adobe will not
drag you to court for software piracy if you use your program in your
home. Or will they?

--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

My understanding is that it's not strictly home use, but rather
non-commercial academic use. You should not use your academic license
for any kind of commercial production, even if you are still a student.

From: 14.5 End User License Agreement, Photoshop 7.0.
"Educational Software Product Conditions. If the Software accompanying
this Agreement is Educational Software Product (Software manufactured
for distribution to Adobes educational channel), you are not entitled
to Use the Software unless you qualify in your jurisdiction as an
Educational End User..."

Actually there is a rather nice anomaly in the PS commercial license
that might help all you commercial users, who also want to learn/expand
your skill at home. Read the following:
http://www.adobe.com/support/salesdocs/2416.htm


--
Regards
Christopher Dillon
Onemouse .-'
+------------------------------------------ _|__--+
| One Man & His Mouse Design Consultancy / |
| |()_()| |
| Cambridge {o o}/ |
| New Zealand =o/= |
+------------------------------------------ ^ ^ --+

Sorry, try it now.
--
Martin.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mlb01/
"The known is finite, The unknown infinite"
T.H.Huxley

Photoshop is using the monitor profile all the time when it shows the
images, it converts the image data that is sent to the monitor path
on-the-fly from the active (RGB or CMYK or Gray) working-space to the
monitor profile. The image data that is in the memory and in the file is
not affected, just the path on-the-fly to the monitor is affected so that
the image data appears correctly on the monitor.

Monitor calibration utilities such as the EyeOne and AdobeGamma also have
calibration functionality in addition that they create the monitor ICC
profile. This monitor profile describes the colorimetry of the monitor
(path) after the calibration has been activated. The loader is needed for
activation of the calibration (the calibration is the same as the CLUTs,
per channel look up curves that are written to the display driver card). So
also AdobeGamma is using the loader, called AdobeGammaLoader.exe.

Hmmm, why. With SW a lot is possible but this is something that you'd not
want to have.

When using well written utilities, no. The calibration/profiling utility
first resets the CLUTs then asks the user to calibrate then writes the
profile.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

Other related questions. When using WinXP and PS7, if the Adobe Gamma profile created is selected
as the system default profile, is the Gamma Loader (ColorVision loader or any other profiling loader
for that matter) in startup really necessary? Doesn't PS7 simply use the loaded startup profile, or
if none are loaded at startup doesn't it use the default system profile?

I believe Sally is just PO'd, because I helped chase her little favorite
software company out of usenet.

Oh, well!!!!!!

:-)

Uni

I disagree.

Now *that* is wrong. That used to be the case but is no longer the
case in modern computers. I am even prepared to believe that you are
right about your first statement and second one if you are talking
about old computers. Sa, at least 3 years plus. But, modern machines
don't have the CD/HDD problem any more.

So, unless you are talking about old machines, I don;t agree with
either of your statements.

--

Hecate
[Email Removed] (Fried computers a specialty)

It seems that they may give a lot of leeway, according to whether or
not they believe you. Also as expected.

But what exactly is the purpose of registering a program? I have
always bought my software, both Windows 2000, Word Perfect and Corel
(do not use Adobe yet), but never registered anything. It seems that
the software industry wants greater control over what people do with
the software, even when people have paid for it. The latest is Adobe's
announcement that they are going to implement Product Activation. Not
a problem for pirates who will always decompile and crack anything,
but a major nuisance for honest users.

Now I wonder what is the right thing to do: Boycott Adobe because of
their choice or hurry to buy a PS 7 copy without Product Activation so
that I can have that for perpetuity, and so that my critical comments
will carry more weight. If one can say that "I paid for my license"
one might be listened to more than if one criticizes something one
does not have - then it is easier to say "you just do not want to pay,
and only therefore you are vocal about this."

What is the group's take on Product Activation schemes that make the
user dependent on the avsilability of the software manufacturer's
activation/registration services? Why would we accept such things any
more than we would accept to use another tool that the manufacturer
could effectively stop us from using at their discrimination?

Lastly, is Adobe Photoshop 7 a better photo editing program than
Corel's PhotoPaint and if so, why?

--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

wrote>

whole thing

1/6 that of Earth.

The loader is necessary when the profile was created with an monitor
profiling utility that also has calibration features (when a calibration
feature is adjusted the effect is immediately seen as a change to the
appearance of the Windows desktop/backgound/icon etc).

There is no problem with a loader (like the AdobeGammaLoader.exe) it does
not stay resident. It simply runs at startup, loads the calibration curves
to the display driver hardware and then exits/ends.

Photoshop is using the active system/monitor ICC profile (all
color-management sw do so) and if nothing is specified it will use the
profile is active in AdobeGamma. But those ICC profiles are only valid for
the calibrated system, so the calibration (that is not an ICC profile) has
to be loaded to the display driver hardware first only then the profile is
correct.

It is possible to only profile the monitor (e.g. with WinNT it has to be
done so since Adobe was not able enough to write the AdobeGamma to be fully
compatible with the NT) in this case a loader is not needed (since the
system is not calibrated). This would be the optimal case *IF* all the sw
we use were ICC color-managed. But because most sw are not ICC
color-managed then we want to adjust the color-temperature, gray-balance
and gamma of the system suitably so that the non-color-managed world
appears somewhat decently on the monitor.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Freddy Cocquyt" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:bQXIa.61629$[Email Removed]...

Apparently lost on you. He should have been less subtle about the
"rec.photo.equipment.35mm" blurb.

OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to throw stones.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

I take lthis to mean that if the Windows XP default ICC monitor profile is used, there is no need to
used the Gamma loader. Is this correct? It would seem that using the Gamma loader as startup would
only be changing from one ICC profile to another ICC profile. In my situation, I created a hardware
created ICC monitor profile, made it the system default, then removed the Gamma loader from startup.
Under this circumstance, I don't forsee any problem with PS7 having access to the correct display
ICC profile. Is there something wrong in setting up this way?

I think you have thrown me here. If most software is not ICC color-managed, then would they not
revert back to the default monitor profile, which I am making sure is a valid ICC color profile? In
a Windows system if the default ICC profile is accurate, then there should be no need to readjust
color-temp, gray-balance, and gamma for non-color managed applications.


> Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

--
John Miller
Usenet admin since 1987

The superfluous is very necessary.
-- Voltaire

Hehe.

What about middle-posting? No wait don't answer that.

....

Sigh...

Sometimes you just have to do the work and not try and cheat.




--
Mike

* Logo Design *
Put some fun in your next logo!

Site at: http://www.artistmike.com

want.

--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html

Actually, the bigger pain than either is failure to trim quotes well.

--
John "top, bottom, don't care, really" Miller

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of sense to know
how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

People prefer to bottom-post because that's how normal people normally
read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
page and works their way up.

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the
successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place
thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I'm
with John Miller... I don't really care where it's posted just as long
noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the
word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

Ah, someone to whom the term 'netiquette' will come as a novelty.

B>

This is entirely wrong.

I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming
before the answer. So do most people.

Therefore, any reply ought to come after what is being replied to.

--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

Others have show why top posting is silly. Reading a longer post
is equilivent to vertical tennis.

More importantly, you make a presumption that all the articles will
arrive in sequence and be properly threaded. That isn't always the
case in a system of thousands of NNTP servers.

What amazes me about this offshoot I started is that the primary
element of my posting was to help some clueless humorless fellow
understand why someone in the 35mm realm was complaining about
mass crosspostings. And so I have changed followups to suit.
For some reason you and a couple others wannabe rebel top posters
felt a need to beat your chest about why your inane practice makes sense.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Netiquette would have much much more to do with slighting or dissing
someone in a one-liner than it would have to do with wheather you
placed you reply text at the top, bottom, or middle of the (included
for your _convienience_) quoted text of the previous message. But
it's ok. We forgive you.