Photoshop Elements 2.0

In article <47979cb7$0$2976$ba624c82@nntp06.dk.telia.net>, Erik Richard
Sørensen <NOSPAM DeleteThis @NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> > Come to think of it, looking back, I don't recall any apps breaking when
> > I've upgraded Macs from 10.1.x to Jaguar and later. Can you provide
> > examples of apps that stopped working and had no free update available
> > to make them compatible?
>
> - Adobe Photoshop 6.0 Hybrid (PC/Mac)*
>
> ...and many, many more.... - All those works up to OS X 10.1.5 without
> Os 9.x installed

photoshop 6 (there was no 'hybrid' version) requires classic and will
*not* run without os 9 installed. photoshop 7 was the first version
that ran native in osx as well as native in os9. photoshop cs dropped
support for os 9.

> * Are in two different version - one for Os 9.x and one for OS X. OS X
> New versions had to be bought as new or upgrades.

the same photoshop 7 application ran on both os 9 and os x.

> I've just tried to lauchaeach of these. None of them will open if Os 9.x
> aren't installed and launched.

then they're classic apps, not os x carbon.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

In article <4797969e$0$14999$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>,
Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM.RemoveThis@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> gtr wrote:
> >
> > That's for the input from all. The idea of actually buying in to Adobe
> > products is likely something I can't manage to do. Not for once-a-year
> > access.
>
> Well..., the price of the new version 6 will be a real attractive one.
> Here in Denmark it was announced to 879Dkr., (apprx. $180Usd) if I
> bought it directly from Adobe. - Not a bad price for a pre-order product...

That's quite the markup. In the US, a new license for PE6/Mac is $90 and
an upgrade is $70.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

In article <4797de56$0$15015$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>, Erik
Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM.RemoveThis@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> > photoshop 6 (there was no 'hybrid' version) requires classic and will
> > *not* run without os 9 installed. photoshop 7 was the first version
> > that ran native in osx as well as native in os9. photoshop cs dropped
> > support for os 9.
>
> Veeeery strange, since I have a copy of a Phs 6.0.1 Mac/win on the same
> CD.... And opening the application with a resource editor clearly shows
> that it contains carbon resources...

i don't know what resources to which you refer, but photoshop 6 is not
os x native. it runs reasonable well in classic, but i do recall a
disappearing menu bar bug.

> >> I've just tried to lauchaeach of these. None of them will open if Os 9.x
> >> aren't installed and launched.
> >
> > then they're classic apps, not os x carbon.
>
> All apps mentioned contain carbon resources, but they only run either in
> booted OS 9.x or in classic envirement.

if they *only* run either by booting os 9 or within classic, then they
are not os x native. if they can *also* run in os x *without* classic,
then they're a hybrid.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

AV3 <arvimide.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Maybe you were thinking of PE 2 installed in Classic. That stopped
> running for me in Tiger OS 4's Classic mode, although it functioned in
> the OS 3's Classic mode, whatever cat that was.

Who are you talking to? It sounds like you're addressing Erik while
responding to, and citing only, my post.

--
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

In article <4797fed9$0$2971$ba624c82@nntp06.dk.telia.net>, Erik Richard
Sørensen <NOSPAM.DeleteThis@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> >> Veeeery strange, since I have a copy of a Phs 6.0.1 Mac/win on the same
> >> CD.... And opening the application with a resource editor clearly shows
> >> that it contains carbon resources...
> >
> > i don't know what resources to which you refer, but photoshop 6 is not
> > os x native.
>
> Some cbrm, cdem, wmcm etc.etc

i dont' see any of those resources in ps 6, 7, cs, cs2 or cs3. ps 7
has a cfrg that lists two fragments (the rest only have one fragment),
while cs and later have a carb resource.

> The original to this was, if carbonized apps ran native OS X or not, and
> my answer was that not all carbonized apps can run native in OS X later
> than OS X 10.1.5.

if they're os x native in 10.1, then they're os x native in 10.2 and
later, although changes in later systems might incur compatibility
problems.

> And normally, when we are talking about a 'hybrid' CD, this means that
> it contains both a windows _and_ a Mac installer of the same app on the
> same CD.

a hybrid cd is simply both mac and pc formats on the same physical
disc. although it often contains an installer, there is no requirement
that it contain anything in particular.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM.DeleteThis@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> > Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM.DeleteThis@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> >> Not all carbon apps will run on OS X higher than 10.1.5...
> >
> > Come to think of it, looking back, I don't recall any apps breaking when
> > I've upgraded Macs from 10.1.x to Jaguar and later. Can you provide
> > examples of apps that stopped working and had no free update available
> > to make them compatible?
>
> Just a couple...l
> - iMovie 2.0.x*
> - Macromedia Freehand 6.0.x*
> - Filemaker Pro 6.0 Hybrid (PC/Mac)*

I have FileMaker Pro 6.0 running perfectly happily in Leopard on an
Intel Mac, so I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here.

Same with FileMaker Pro 5.5, for that matter. And that was a copy I
originally installed in Mac OS 9 on my PowerMac 8600 and copied over to
my MacBook Pro.

FileMaker Pro 5.0 and earlier won't work natively on Mac OS X (but will
work in the Classic environment on PowerPC Macs). I don't own version
5.0, but I have 4.0.

> ...and many, many more.... - All those works up to OS X 10.1.5 without
> Os 9.x installed
>
> * Are in two different version - one for Os 9.x and one for OS X. OS X
> New versions had to be bought as new or upgrades.

FileMaker Pro 6.0 was sold as a product which ran natively on Mac OS 9
and Mac OS X, with separate installers on the CD for each (I have the
box right here).

5.5 was the first version which ran natively on Mac OS X. I don't have
the CD handy, but the original copy I installed in Mac OS 9 (5.5v1) is a
Carbon application which has a data fork and resource fork. This copy
runs fine on Leopard on my MacBook Pro, so your claim that old "hybrid"
Carbon applications won't work after 10.1.5 is not true at least for
FileMaker Pro 5.5.

I also updated it to 5.5v2, which changed the application structure to a
Mac OS X package. That also runs fine under Leopard on my MacBook Pro.

I don't have the Mac OS 9 build of FileMaker Pro 6.0 installed anywhere
so I can't say whether that will also run on my MacBook Pro. If you
really think it is worth proving the point, I can install it on my Mac
OS 9 computer, copy it over to my MacBook Pro and try running it.

> I've just tried to lauchaeach of these. None of them will open if Os 9.x
> aren't installed and launched.

I have no Mac OS 9 system anywhere on my MacBook Pro (of course).

--
David Empson
dempson.DeleteThis@actrix.gen.nz
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM DeleteThis @NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> > I don't have the Mac OS 9 build of FileMaker Pro 6.0 installed anywhere
> > so I can't say whether that will also run on my MacBook Pro. If you
> > really think it is worth proving the point, I can install it on my Mac
> > OS 9 computer, copy it over to my MacBook Pro and try running it.
>
> As I've written, I really doubt your results here, since I as already
> written have all versions from 2.1 and up to 7.0v3. The only one that
> can be installed on both OS 9.2.x and OS X is the ver. 7.0v3.

Why do you keep on saying things like this? When things work for other
people and not for you, your impulse is to say that you don't believe
them, not to try to figure out why you're not capable of doing things
the rest of us are. How do you think it feels to see things working and
have someone else say it's not possible?

--
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

In article <1ib65un.1epftqq1w8wk71N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST DeleteThis @TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST DeleteThis @TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> > However, Photoshop Elements 2.0 is not one of those. As I have
> > previously stated, it can run on PowerPC Macs running Tiger and earlier
> > OS X versions. It's not compatible with Leopard or Intel Macs.
>
> I have to amend the above statement, because it turns out I was wrong.
> Photoshop Elements _does_ run on Intel Macs under Tiger.

Hi Mike, I know we're talking about PEv2 on Tiger, but do you know if
PEv4 runs on Leopard Intel? I have a friend with a new iMac who want s
to buy a scanner which comes with PEv4 as a freeby. Should she wait till
the vendor updates the software package for 10.5?

Thanks,

--Fred
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM DeleteThis @NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> David Empson wrote:
> > Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM DeleteThis @NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> >> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> >>> Erik Richard Sørensen <NOSPAM DeleteThis @NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> >>>> Not all carbon apps will run on OS X higher than 10.1.5...
> >>> Come to think of it, looking back, I don't recall any apps breaking when
> >>> I've upgraded Macs from 10.1.x to Jaguar and later. Can you provide
> >>> examples of apps that stopped working and had no free update available
> >>> to make them compatible?
> >> Just a couple...l
> >> - iMovie 2.0.x*
> >> - Macromedia Freehand 6.0.x*
> >> - Filemaker Pro 6.0 Hybrid (PC/Mac)*
> >
> > I have FileMaker Pro 6.0 running perfectly happily in Leopard on an
> > Intel Mac, so I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here.
>
> With FMP 6.0 and 6.0v3 you got the choice of choosing between a
> carbonized OS 9.x only version and a carbonized version that could be
> installed on both. Where the hybrid Mac/PC CD only contains the classic
> carbonized and the Windows version.

The FMP 6.0 CD I have is hybrid (HFS and ISO 9660), containing both Mac
& Windows installers. On the Mac volume, there are separate installers
for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.

> > Same with FileMaker Pro 5.5, for that matter. And that was a copy I
> > originally installed in Mac OS 9 on my PowerMac 8600 and copied over to
> > my MacBook Pro.
>
> I'm sure you are wrong here. There are three different versions of FMP
> 5.5 - a Mac only CD (system 7.6.1 to 9.2.2), a Win only (Win98sr2 to
> Win2000*)) CD and a Mac/Win hybrid CD with same system requirements.

I've dug out my FMP 5.5 CD. It has exactly the same structure as my 6.0
CD. It is a hybrid (Mac plus Windows), with Classic and Mac OS X
installers on the Mac volume.

The full list of files at the root level:

Dictionaries (folder)
Electronic Documentation (folder)
FileMaker Label Files (folder)
Install Acrobat Reader 4.0 (folder)
Personalization Info (text file)
Read Me Mac OS Classic (text file)
Read Me Mac OS X.txt (text file)
Start Here Mac OS Classic (classic application)
Start Here Mac OS X (Carbon application)

The CD's modification date is 10 April 2001. Its FileMaker part number
is U01073-001A.

I have just re-run the FMP 5.5 Mac OS X installer from the CD on my
MacBook Pro under Leopard. Works fine, as does the installed copy of the
5.5v1 application. So did my earlier copy which I originally installed
on Mac OS 9 (using the classic installer) and then copied over to Mac OS
X.

My 5.5 CD's documentation (FMP 5.5 Getting Started.pdf) says that its
system requirements are:

Mac OS 8.1 or later (with some features requiring 8.6).
Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4.0 SP3 or Win2K.

It has a separate "FMP 5.5 and Mac OS X.pdf" which says it works on the
official release of Mac OS X (i.e. 10.0) but not the public beta.

I can't explain why your FMP 5.5 and 6.0 seem to be different from mine.
In particular, your different system requirements make no sense at all.

I have the standard Australia and New Zealand retail edition, and all
evidence I can find says that the US edition is exactly like mine.

I did a search on FileMaker's web site and found a copy of the "Read Me
Mac OS X.txt" file which is on my 5.5 CD. I can't paste a direct link
due to session keys, but go to

http://filemaker.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/filemaker.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.
php

Type in "FileMaker Pro 5.5" as a search term.

Item 8 is the read me file.

Item 13 is the press release announcing FileMaker Pro 5.5 and the fact
that it runs natively on Mac OS X (which is what prompted me to buy it).

Also do a search for "FileMaker Pro System Requirements" and you will
find an article which lists the precise requirements on every operating
system for every version of FileMaker Pro. As far as the Mac is
concerned, it says:

5.5v1: Mac OS 8.6 through 9.2, or Mac OS X (slight disagreement with the
Read Me file, which says 8.1 works but some features require 8.6).

6.0v1: Mac OS 8.6 through 9.2, or Mac OS X 10.1.

7.0v1: Mac OS X 10.2.8 or later.

> Neither the Mac only nor the hybrid can be installed on any OS X higher
> than 10.1.5.

I've just disproved that with my CD.

> - But you can open and use/modify 5.5 database file with
> any OS X compatible version of FMP from ver. 6.x and newer. - Infact you
> can open FMP files right from ver. 4.0 withan oS X version of FMP.

Yes, I know that, and I'm not opening existing databases which might
launch the wrong application version. I'm directly launching the desired
FileMaker Pro application (then opening a database from within the
application to prove it works).

I own FileMaker Pro 3.0, 4.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 9.0. I currently have
all the ones I own from 5.5 onward installed on my MacBook Pro, and they
all work under Leopard.

FMP 5.5 works when installed directly from CD (using the Mac OS X
installer), or when installed on Mac OS 9 (on another computer) and
copied to Mac OS X.

The rest were originally installed on Mac OS X, either directly on this
computer (FMP 9.0) or by migration from an older computer.

> > FileMaker Pro 5.0 and earlier won't work natively on Mac OS X (but will
> > work in the Classic environment on PowerPC Macs). I don't own version
> > 5.0, but I have 4.0.
>
> I have all versions from ver. 2.1 to 7.0v3, and I can guarantee that
> ver. 5.5 will not install or run native in OS X from ver. 10.2.8 and up
> - not on PPC Macs, nor on IntelMacs.

It seems that _your_ copy of FMP 5.5 doesn't work on Mac OS X 10.2.8 and
later. Mine does.

> But any of them will run in classic envirements on any computer that
> supports classic Mac oS.

That isn't in dispute, at least for 6.0 and earlier. 7.0 requires Mac OS
X.

> >> ...and many, many more.... - All those works up to OS X 10.1.5 without
> >> Os 9.x installed
> >>
> >> * Are in two different version - one for Os 9.x and one for OS X. OS X
> >> New versions had to be bought as new or upgrades.
> >
> > FileMaker Pro 6.0 was sold as a product which ran natively on Mac OS 9
> > and Mac OS X, with separate installers on the CD for each (I have the
> > box right here).
>
> Not on the CD I have here. There is only 1 (one) installer, and this one
> is System 7.6.1 to 9.2.x only

Quote from the PDF Getting Started guide for FMP 6.0 in my installed
copy:

Mac OS requirements
* an Apple computer that supports and is running Mac OS 8.6,
Mac OS 9 versions 9.0 through 9.2.2, or Mac OS X versions 10.1
through 10.1.4

(It actually works on any subsequent version of Mac OS X as well, but
some features might be broken in Leopard.)

> > 5.5 was the first version which ran natively on Mac OS X. I don't have
> > the CD handy, but the original copy I installed in Mac OS 9 (5.5v1) is a
> > Carbon application which has a data fork and resource fork. This copy
> > runs fine on Leopard on my MacBook Pro, so your claim that old "hybrid"
> > Carbon applications won't work after 10.1.5 is not true at least for
> > FileMaker Pro 5.5.
>
> As I've already explained, hybrid has nothing to do with carbonizing,
> claccis+OS X to do. Hybrid contains installers for Mac and windows on
> the same CD.

Windows support which happens to be on the same CD has nothing to do
with whether a particular Mac OS 9 application will run natively on Mac
OS X. It is a totally separate file system on the CD (which might happen
to share some files).

I thought you were talking about a distinction between different
physical structures of applications (resource + data forks vs packages)
and claiming that certain older Carbon applications won't run natively
on Mac OS X 10.2 or later. I misused the "hybrid" term. Sorry for the
confusion.

I'm still dubious about your general claim as to old applications not
running in 10.2 and later, but FileMaker Pro is the only one you listed
which can lay my hands on quickly, and I am absolutely certain you are
wrong on that one, at least for MY copies of FileMaker Pro 5.5 and 6.0.

(I can probably dig out iMovie 2.0.x, I have Corel Graphics 8 somewhere,
and I do have a version of 4th Dimension, but don't recall which one.)

> > I also updated it to 5.5v2, which changed the application structure to a
> > Mac OS X package. That also runs fine under Leopard on my MacBook Pro.
>
> Same here, but it will not open on neither my MacPro, nor my
> quicksilver. Both are running Tiger and Leopard. each time I try on
> Leopard I get a message telling that "Classic envirement is no longer
> supported with this system". And the application icon is 'sealed' with a
> large Ø over the icon.

My FMP 5.5v1 application (originally installed on Mac OS 9) is Carbon.
Mac OS X is happy to run it, and doesn't think it is a classic
application.

> > I don't have the Mac OS 9 build of FileMaker Pro 6.0 installed anywhere
> > so I can't say whether that will also run on my MacBook Pro. If you
> > really think it is worth proving the point, I can install it on my Mac
> > OS 9 computer, copy it over to my MacBook Pro and try running it.
>
> As I've written, I really doubt your results here, since I as already
> written have all versions from 2.1 and up to 7.0v3. The only one that
> can be installed on both OS 9.2.x and OS X is the ver. 7.0v3.

That is not correct. FMP 7.0 doesn't run on Mac OS 9 at all (or in the
Classic environment). It requires Mac OS X (10.2.8, in fact).

FMP 6.0 was the last version which runs on Mac OS 9.

> IF it was possible to run as low as ver. 5.5v175.5v2 the problems with
> FMP on Leopard would be not-existing. - You may have read that there are
> severe problems with the latest versions on Leopard.

Yes, I'm well aware of that, and most of them have been fixed. I'm
running 9.0 on Leopard as my primary version (with occasional use of
version 7.0 for compatibility checks, and 6.0 for accessing older
databases).

Cheers
--
David Empson
dempson DeleteThis @actrix.gen.nz
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

Fred Moore <fmoore RemoveThis @gcfn.org> wrote:

> Hi Mike, I know we're talking about PEv2 on Tiger, but do you know if
> PEv4 runs on Leopard Intel? I have a friend with a new iMac who want s
> to buy a scanner which comes with PEv4 as a freeby. Should she wait till
> the vendor updates the software package for 10.5?

PE 4 runs on Intel Macs in Leopard, but that doesn't mean the scanner
driver does, too. That's something you'd need to make sure of.

--
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0 

Dave Balderstone <dave.DeleteThis@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > Why do you keep on saying things like this? When things work for other
> > people and not for you, your impulse is to say that you don't believe
> > them, not to try to figure out why you're not capable of doing things
> > the rest of us are. How do you think it feels to see things working and
> > have someone else say it's not possible?
>
> IMPOSSIBLE - Means: (1) I wouldn't like it and when it happens I won't
> approve; (2) I can't be bothered; (3) God can't be bothered. Meaning 3
> may perhaps be valid, but the others are 101% whaledreck. -- Chad C.
> Mulligan, author of the fictitious The Hipcrime Vocab, in John
> Brunner's "Stand On Zanzibar"

Excellent!

Say, have you noticed that our guy hasn't said one word about my screen
shot of Elements 2.0 running an a MacBook Pro in OS X 10.4.11? Oh, and
I have to wonder how he accounts for all those funky installer CDs he
claims to have. Interesting that he, and he alone, should end up with
all these discs that work differently than the ones the rest of us have.
It couldn't possibly be the computer, now, could it?

--
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop Elements 2.0