mick232: You people seem to ignore a couple of things:
1. there is more than one workaround available (don't open TIF files from untrusted sources, scan TIF file with virus scanner)
2. fixing a bug in old software is more expensive by orders of magnitude than in upcoming or current software; even if the fix is a one-liner, the software has to be re-built, re-tested, re-released. Don't underestimate the effort needed for all these steps. These processes have to be re-run for the fix whereas with software currently being developed they run anyway.
That is why any software company will assess the severity of a bug. No company will fix any bug, even if it is a security issue. That's just how it is and all your rants are not going to change it.
Sorry mick232,
I have read your last paragraph initially correct and just to confirm, read it again - you now have changed your original wording: 'No company will fix any bug, even if it is a security issue. That's just how it is and all your rants are not going to change it.'
Additionally, please note that CS6 is not yet available in some countries through most retailers, e.g., in my country Switzerland, therefore CS5.5 still is effectively the current version and not 'old software'.
Direct link |
Posted on May 14, 2012 at 22:42:04 UTC
PicOne: "If you ever think 'for $1,500 I demand perfection,' this is not the article for you, it will just get you upset. The laws of physics are not suspended, nor are techniques of manufacturing altered, just because you demand it be so."
Perhaps not... but for the more money spent, the more I would at least presume the QC procedures prevent crappola from actually hitting the retailer shelves. Your term "allowable tolerance" I would also presume is a floating definition. Again I would presume that more expensive lens productions lines have more stringent definitions of 'allowable' applied.
Indeed you seem to argue the opposite, in that the potential tolerances are much greater with lenses with more elements/groupings (ie. more expensive lenses) than lenses of simpler construction, and that therefore buyers should expect more expensive lenses to perform worse than cheaper lenses.
Lenses with more elements/groupings do not necessarily perform worse than simpler lenses, even for the same allowable tolerance, as not every element/grouping exhibits the same sensitivity, i.e. a certain variation may cause different levels of image quality degradation depending on where in the construction it occurs.
In a good lens design the allowable tolerances are specifically defined for each construction element depending on the impact of variation on image quality.
Consequently, a well-designed lens on average performs better than a lesser lens, independent of the amount of lens elements/groupings.
Direct link |
Posted on Nov 26, 2011 at 01:22:50 UTC
IEBA1: Two things of note here is that Adobe both accelerated the release schedule (more versions more often) and decreased the number of previous versions eligible for upgrade pricing. So, in essence, instead of upgrading 2, 3 maybe even more years apart, Adobe now wants to see new cash every year or so.
To their credit- they are making dramatic improvements in their software. So the ROI is still there IMHO.
Whether any improvements in their software are 'dramatic' highly depends on each customer's need, while it is a fact that many users do not update to every new version.
I currently use CS4 and planned to upgrade to CS6, however Adobe puts me under pressure to pay for CS5 by end Dec 2011 on very short and even strangely indirect notice via a blog post - just to be able to use CS5 for the short period until CS6 is out, when I could have enjoyed CS5 for a much longer time, if I knew this earlier.
Therefore to me Adobe's way of communicating is unprofessional and to do it on such short notice is unfair business.
Direct link |
Posted on Nov 22, 2011 at 23:45:49 UTC
mick232: You people seem to ignore a couple of things:
1. there is more than one workaround available (don't open TIF files from untrusted sources, scan TIF file with virus scanner)
2. fixing a bug in old software is more expensive by orders of magnitude than in upcoming or current software; even if the fix is a one-liner, the software has to be re-built, re-tested, re-released. Don't underestimate the effort needed for all these steps. These processes have to be re-run for the fix whereas with software currently being developed they run anyway.
That is why any software company will assess the severity of a bug. No company will fix any bug, even if it is a security issue. That's just how it is and all your rants are not going to change it.
Sorry mick232,
I have read your last paragraph initially correct and just to confirm, read it again - you now have changed your original wording:
'No company will fix any bug, even if it is a security issue. That's just how it is and all your rants are not going to change it.'
Additionally, please note that CS6 is not yet available in some countries through most retailers, e.g., in my country Switzerland, therefore CS5.5 still is effectively the current version and not 'old software'.
PicOne: "If you ever think 'for $1,500 I demand perfection,' this is not the article for you, it will just get you upset. The laws of physics are not suspended, nor are techniques of manufacturing altered, just because you demand it be so."
Perhaps not... but for the more money spent, the more I would at least presume the QC procedures prevent crappola from actually hitting the retailer shelves. Your term "allowable tolerance" I would also presume is a floating definition. Again I would presume that more expensive lens productions lines have more stringent definitions of 'allowable' applied.
Indeed you seem to argue the opposite, in that the potential tolerances are much greater with lenses with more elements/groupings (ie. more expensive lenses) than lenses of simpler construction, and that therefore buyers should expect more expensive lenses to perform worse than cheaper lenses.
Lenses with more elements/groupings do not necessarily perform worse than simpler lenses, even for the same allowable tolerance, as not every element/grouping exhibits the same sensitivity, i.e. a certain variation may cause different levels of image quality degradation depending on where in the construction it occurs.
In a good lens design the allowable tolerances are specifically defined for each construction element depending on the impact of variation on image quality.
Consequently, a well-designed lens on average performs better than a lesser lens, independent of the amount of lens elements/groupings.
IEBA1: Two things of note here is that Adobe both accelerated the release schedule (more versions more often) and decreased the number of previous versions eligible for upgrade pricing. So, in essence, instead of upgrading 2, 3 maybe even more years apart, Adobe now wants to see new cash every year or so.
To their credit- they are making dramatic improvements in their software. So the ROI is still there IMHO.
Whether any improvements in their software are 'dramatic' highly depends on each customer's need, while it is a fact that many users do not update to every new version.
I currently use CS4 and planned to upgrade to CS6, however Adobe puts me under pressure to pay for CS5 by end Dec 2011 on very short and even strangely indirect notice via a blog post - just to be able to use CS5 for the short period until CS6 is out, when I could have enjoyed CS5 for a much longer time, if I knew this earlier.
Therefore to me Adobe's way of communicating is unprofessional and to do it on such short notice is unfair business.