Re: OT: Stable Mac OS releases, was Re: digital question #2

I am running Gentoo Linux on a P4 2.5ghz machine with 1024MB ram.
Adobe Photoshop installs and runs using the "wine" program:
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=17&versionId=1336

I am using version 20040121 of wine, and it works fine, though I
am told some subsequent versions may have had little glitches.

Photoshop 7 under Linux seems to perform about 98% of the functions
as it does on Windows- One thing it won't do, for instance, is perform the
"save to web" compression comparison utility, but I find I don't
really need that.

Unfortunately, the "official" Epson driver for my 1280 doesn't install on
Linux, but, Linux has it's own fairly mature printer driver that
functions with my Epson 1280.

I have been editing in Photoshop, saving the file, then
inkjet printing using Roy Harrington's Quadtone RIP program, which
uses thirdparty inks. Results have been great.

http://www.harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html

(also available for you OS X folks).

I wrote a small tutorial for installing QuadToneRIP under linux-
If anyone is interested they can email for a .pdf file which may
make things easier for you.

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:16:35PM -0500, Dennis Moser wrote:
> Okay, Jeff, I'll bite: HOW did you get Photoshop 7 to run under Linux?
> And what sort of box are you running Gentoo on? I ask because in my day
> job, this may matter...
>
> Dennis
>
> Jeff Dilcher wrote:
>
> >I am probably the lone user of desktop Linux on the list, using Gentoo.
> >Don't laugh- I am running Photoshop 7 on it! Linux is not without it's
> >own learning curve, though- not for the technologically weak of heart,
> >but it is getting more user friendly, and is regarded as very secure
> >and pretty stable.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:35:56AM -0500, Pam Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> >>Dennis, I"ve been a Mac software developer for 19 years (and a software
> >>developer for 34 years). MacOS was a patched wreck waiting to happen,
> >>day in and day out. Its only saving grace was the interface and the fact
> >>that even it was superior to Windows. I've also been a user of many
> >>types of applications, such as graphics. Memory management, or lack
> >>thereof, continuously got in the way. Maybe 8.6 was the best of the
> >>MacOS's, I'll leave that for you to debate, I tend to prefer 9.2.n; but
> >>I no longer boot into MacOS.
> >>
> >>Pam
> >>
> >>Dennis Moser wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>No, she's not kidding...8.6 WAS an extremely robust and steady OS on
> >>>pre-Power PC Macs such as the IIci's and Quadras...but that was the
> >>>problem, the Power PCs were a move away from that and required
> >>>something more...one of the problems was Apple maintaining
> >>>backwards-compatibility with all that old hardware (I still have three
> >>>IIci's and a Quadra 950...).
> >>>
> >>>One thing to remember is that, underneath the "hood", OS X is really a
> >>>UNIX operating system and they are noted for their stability (we ran a
> >>>IIci with NetBSD UNIX on it for a year before needing to reboot it!).
> >>>
> >>>Dennis
> >>>
> >>>Pam Niedermayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>You've got to be kidding! No, and I mean NO, version of Mac OS has
> >>>>ever been as reliable as OSX, on which I'm booted for months, not
> >>>>hours, without a crash, or even hint of a crash. That alone is worth
> >>>>the price of admission (a new Mac). Now 9.2.2 is also very good, and
> >>>>I'm with you on the upgrades issue (still run all the major graphics
> >>>>and publishing apps in 9); but....
> >>>>
> >>>>Pam
> >>>>
> >>>>Judy Seigel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>...
> >>>>>IMO, the last good system was 8.6 -- it did everything wonderfully,
> >>>>>NEVER crashed, was kind and considerate and sensible. ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> mailto:aldus@angrek.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief
> danger of the time"
> --John Stuart Mill (1806-73)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Received on Tue Aug 3 11:53:52 2004