Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 20:39:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you are pirating it.

Not necessarily.

If you're downloading the tweaked versions from Adobe without actually
owning a licence, then yes, you are pirating it. The instructions on
Aodbe's download page specifically say you have to already own a
licence.

That was more or less my point. While piracy was probable it is not
necessarily piracy in every case. In saying "you are pirating it"
nospam had jumped to a conclusion which was not necessarily correct.

nope. i explained that.

the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it.

Is he even using it?

he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never
bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download
it.

That applies to most people.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating
it.
|
| Is he even using it?
|
| he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never
| bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download
| it.
|
| That applies to most people.

Why are so many people always so quick to
go on a witch hunt when it comes to "pirating"
software? It's not clear what the OP did. It's not
relevant to his question. And the CS2 download
was, indeed, legal for a period of time. I saw the
page when they posted it. They included a legal
ditty that said, specifically, that it was only
legal to use the software if it was obtained
directly from Adobe. That was it.

They gave it away. They said they were giving
it away. They gave away a working key along with
it.

In any retail store, even if it were a mistake,
the store would be expected to honor such an offer.
I'm not convinced it was a mistake. Companies don't
"mistakenly" put together a web site and free
software offer.
They also claimed it was about
a problem with activation servers. It's their responsibility
to operate the servers. If they won't then they should
give it away. The weird way it all went down may have
been an attempt to sidestep that issue. The likes of
Adobe and MS surely don't want a court case about
their responsibilities involved with activation-crippled
software. On the other hand, they'd like to keep milking
software they no longer support.
(When MS started "product activation" with XP they
put out the word that when XP went unsupported they'd
"probably" issue a universal key. But XP turned out to
be popular. MS still don't dare to give it away, lest it
have a resurgence.)

But all that's beside the point. Adobe gave away CS2.
Period.

And no one needs to take my word for it. Look it
up. The articles from the time all say basically the
same thing: Adobe gave it away. Downloads were
extremely numerous. Adobe then backtracked and said,
"Oh. We didn't mean it was free." Then they put
up a page to require getting a "membership" in order
to download. It all looks like a planned marketing
ploy to me. No one using it professionally would
have bothered downloading CS2 at that point. But
it *could* be used as a free trial to get new customers
hooked -- which is a common strategy. And if Adobe
wanted to do such a marketing campaign, how else
could they do it?

So was it marketing? Was it a legal step to get out
of running activation servers? Who knows? But I don't
see the logic in villifying someone who walked past
a supermarket, saw a table full of steaks with a sign
that said, "Free. Help Yourself.", and then took some
steaks. If the supermarket meant they were free only
to people who had already paid for them then the
sign should have said that. And there should have been
a clerk at the table.

It seems to be a quirk of the American psyche that
we love a witch hunt. The mob wants to decide who's
the evil one and pass harsh judgement, so we can be
sure we're safe.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
 

On 04/03/2018 07:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote

| the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating
it.
|
| Is he even using it?
|
| he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never
| bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download
| it.
|
| That applies to most people.

Why are so many people always so quick to
go on a witch hunt when it comes to "pirating"
software? It's not clear what the OP did. It's not
relevant to his question. And the CS2 download
was, indeed, legal for a period of time. I saw the
page when they posted it. They included a legal
ditty that said, specifically, that it was only
legal to use the software if it was obtained
directly from Adobe. That was it.

But, the link provided in this thread was not directly from Adobe.

Therefore, is downloading from the site mentioned in this thread legal?

snip

But all that's beside the point. Adobe gave away CS2.
Period.

Not without the restriction you show.

snip

It seems to be a quirk of the American psyche that
we love a witch hunt. The mob wants to decide who's
the evil one and pass harsh judgement, so we can be
sure we're safe.


Or, some people respect the intellectual property of the developers more.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

Am Mon, 02 Apr 2018 16:32:57 -0400, schrieb nospam:

nonsense. not only can it be done on a mac, but more efficiently with
fewer steps than your cluster**** solution *and* produce higher quality
results. it can even be done on an ipad or iphone.

Again, you just guess, nopspam.
And, again, you just guessed wrong.

We're printing a sign, for heavens sake, to vinyl cuts, for heaven's sake.
Get a grip on reality.

Jesus. You are always wrong on everything.
You have no grip on reality.

A 12x18 text sign with borders doesn't need fancy graphics for heaven's
sake. So you yet again show you have zero technical competency whatsoever.

Vector. Raster. Graphics won't make a bit of difference in this
application.

What matters is that a score of people have to edit it, without learning
any new tools, and the single file that they edit has to have the fonts
embedded since the main edit will be text for heaven's sake.

And the Mac just can't do that.

You just guess.
And you guessed wrong. Again.

The monkey and you would be a fair competition to see who finds the
bananas. And the monkey might just beat you, your record on correct facts
is that dismal.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

Am Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:05:52 -0700, schrieb sms:

The post says that he is creating the sign in Powerpoint and that it
needs to read by Illustrator in the Mac.

I need to dig out my copy of Illustrator which I bought many years ago
at a previous job. I probably used it twice, but I needed to have it for
a specific task. It probably won't even work with WIndows 10.

There are some programs that I've found hard to believe they are still
being used. Corel Draw is the format that many laser cutters require.

I only speak fact.

I used the software to learn how it works with respect to fonts.
The software phones home so Adobe knows whatever they want to know.

Will I ever use the software ever again?

Probably not, why would I? I don't need it. I don't want it.
I don't even like it (AI can't even understand embedded fonts for heaven's
sake.)

I have a licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat & Distiller.
Do I ever use that?
I don't even bother installing it anymore - as it's old crap that doesn't
do anything that freeware can't do.

What does the AI software do?
I don't even know. I think it helps you create vector graphics.

Do I ever create vector graphics?
No.

Do I care to create vector graphics?
No.

Hence, here are three facts.
1. I used the software to test our process with respect to font embedding.
2. The software phones home so Adobe knows I did that & that's fine.
3. The software sucks at embedding fonts (it can't do it).
4. So I have no need for the software whatsoever.

Note: Our process remains as it was before the test.
The test was only to get the shop to start telling the truth.

It's sort of like how we have to deal with nospam, or any defense lawyer.
They never tell the truth until you show them the truth.

Summary:
a. The software sucks for the purpose we wanted it for.
b. Hence, it's useless.
c. It phones home so Adobe knows everything.
d. I will likely never use it ever again.
e. But I will also likely leave it on my system as it doesn't break
anything.

What is likely to happen is that it will just sit there forever, unused,
since it serves no useful purpose for me. When I rebuild the computer,
which I do every year or every half year, on average, it won't even go back
on as it would be wasted effort.

Will I delete it?
I could. But there's no technical reason to delete it.
If Adobe wants me, they know me. I already have licenses from them anyway
that have my name and address on them for other products.

The fact is that it was used to test whether AI handled fonts, and it just
sucks at handling fonts (for our purpose). We proved that beyond a shadow
of a doubt.

Is that a licensing issue. Nope.
Is that licensing issue relevant to the *technical* topic of this thread?
Nope.

Q: Why then is the licensing an issue in this technical thread about fonts?
A: Because the Apple Bigots have no technical competency so they quibble
about off-topic issues that are not in the least relevant to the technical
topic.

In short, the Apple posters don't have any technical competency (they
gravitated to the Apple product for that reason alone) so they can't answer
the technical question, so, they make up their own tangential arguments to
argue about.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

Am Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:27:54 -0400, schrieb Mayayana:

They gave it away. They said they were giving
it away. They gave away a working key along with
it.

Hi Mayayana,

Some salient points about this completely-off-topic licensing issue.

1. *This licensing issue is irrelevant* to the technical topic of this
thread (where you'll note that, like any good defense lawyer trying to
muddle the issue, the classic Apple posters are the ones bringing up the
non-technical tangents because they don't have competency on the technical
question.)

2. Adobe knows all about that Windows key which is posted on the techspot
web site in public by a seemingly reputable web site. If Adobe wanted to
kill it, all it would take is a letter from their lawyer and a call to the
local authorities where that web site is hosted.

3. The software phones home so, if Adobe cared, they'd send a letter to my
ISP.

4. The test is over. The software sucks at embedding fonts (it just can't
do it). We will not modify our process one but since the software gives us
zero advantage to improve the process as a PDF with embedded fonts is all
we care about.

Q: So why did we use the software in the first place?
A: To test whether the shop was telling us the truth, and they weren't
telling us the truth (they were being like nospam always is).

Q: Will we use the software?
A: Nope. It doesn't embed fonts. It's no better than PDF for our purposes.

Q: Does the licensing question bear any relevance to the technical
question?
A: Nope. It's only the Apple Apologists who bring up this issue because
they have no technical competence to answer the technical question.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Bananas are readily available but they are not generally free. That is
why it can be misleading to say they are freely available.

bananas are not software

They are nouns.

good point. all nouns are distributed in the same way software is.

another hour or so and my groceries should be finished downloading.

The sentence under discussion says nothing about downloading.

the issue is pirating cs2, no matter how hard you try to twist it into
something else.

So too is 'Adobe illustrator'. My statement was
concerned with the use/misuse of the English language.

as well it should, since you greatly misused it.

This from the guy who thinks that parsing applies only to software.

where do i get a hardware parser?

you are pirating it.

Not necessarily.

yes necessarily.

Even if he already has a license?

he doesn't and you know it.

I've ploughed through much of his junk and found nothing to suggest
that he has a copy of Illustrator,

exactly the point.

So we don't know either way.

you might not, but the rest of us certainly know.

let alone that he has pirated it.

since it's clear that he never bought cs2, downloading it is pirating
it.

Has he downloaded it?

duh.

he also has admitted to pirating a wide variety of other stuff, so this
is not any sort of surprise.

As far as I can tell the discussion is in the general case, in which
case neither the presence or absence of a license can be assumed.

assumed is the wrong word. no assumptions are necessary.

Where is your evidence?

his numerous posts in this thread and others.

based on what he's written in this thread and countless others, it's
*quite* clear what he's doing.

The clarity is an inference.

not to those who pay attention.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you are pirating it.

Not necessarily.

If you're downloading the tweaked versions from Adobe without actually
owning a licence, then yes, you are pirating it. The instructions on
Aodbe's download page specifically say you have to already own a
licence.

That was more or less my point. While piracy was probable it is not
necessarily piracy in every case. In saying "you are pirating it"
nospam had jumped to a conclusion which was not necessarily correct.

nope. i explained that.

the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it.

Is he even using it?

he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never
bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download
it.

That applies to most people.

and?

did you have a point? no.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it.
|
| Is he even using it?
|
| he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never
| bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download
| it.
|
| That applies to most people.

Why are so many people always so quick to
go on a witch hunt when it comes to "pirating"
software?

because piracy is illegal.

It's not clear what the OP did.

oh yes it very definitely is clear.

It's not
relevant to his question.

yes it is.

And the CS2 download
was, indeed, legal for a period of time.

it was never legal, except for those who *already* *owned* *it*.

I saw the
page when they posted it. They included a legal
ditty that said, specifically, that it was only
legal to use the software if it was obtained
directly from Adobe. That was it.

nope. what it said was it was for existing cs2 customers.

They gave it away. They said they were giving
it away. They gave away a working key along with
it.

it was only for those who originally *bought* cs2.

it was *not* worldwide distribution to everyone.

In any retail store, even if it were a mistake,
the store would be expected to honor such an offer.
I'm not convinced it was a mistake. Companies don't
"mistakenly" put together a web site and free
software offer.

the only mistake is your understanding.

there was *never* a free software offer.

They also claimed it was about
a problem with activation servers. It's their responsibility
to operate the servers. If they won't then they should
give it away.

there was no problem with the activation servers.

what they did was turn them off because there were no longer new
customers buying a nearly decade old piece of software that no longer
worked on newer systems, therefore they could not justify keeping them
running. they created a version for *existing* customers (not new ones)
so that they could reinstall it on their existing hardware.

The weird way it all went down may have
been an attempt to sidestep that issue. The likes of
Adobe and MS surely don't want a court case about
their responsibilities involved with activation-crippled
software. On the other hand, they'd like to keep milking
software they no longer support.

nonsense.

(When MS started "product activation" with XP they
put out the word that when XP went unsupported they'd
"probably" issue a universal key. But XP turned out to
be popular. MS still don't dare to give it away, lest it
have a resurgence.)

xp is no longer supported.

microsoft did offer a free win10 upgrade.

But all that's beside the point. Adobe gave away CS2.
Period.

no they didn't. period.

And no one needs to take my word for it.

don't worry, nobody is foolish enough to do that.

Look it
up. The articles from the time all say basically the
same thing: Adobe gave it away.

you mean articles like these?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adriank.../07/download-a
dobe-cs2-applications-for-free/

Adobe scientist Dov Isaacs clarifies:

On behalf of Adobe Systems Incorporated ...

You have heard wrong! Adobe is absolutely not providing free copies
of CS2!

What is true is that Adobe is terminating the activation servers
for CS2 and that for existing licensed users of CS2 who need to
reinstall their software, copies of CS2 that don't require
activation but do require valid serial numbers are available.
(Special serial numbers are provided on the page for each product
download.) See http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1114930.

Downloads were
extremely numerous. Adobe then backtracked and said,
"Oh. We didn't mean it was free." Then they put
up a page to require getting a "membership" in order
to download.

that's not what happened.

It all looks like a planned marketing
ploy to me.

it wasn't.

No one using it professionally would
have bothered downloading CS2 at that point.

only because cs2 was at the time nearly a decade old, 5 versions
outdated and didn't work properly (or at all) on (then) current
systems.

professionals would have been using the current version, which at the
time was cs6 or creative cloud.

But
it *could* be used as a free trial to get new customers
hooked -- which is a common strategy. And if Adobe
wanted to do such a marketing campaign, how else
could they do it?

there is no point in offering an obsolete version as a trial version,
one which won't even run properly (or at all).

adobe *does* offer trial versions of *currently* shipping software.

So was it marketing? Was it a legal step to get out
of running activation servers? Who knows?

many people know.

just not you.

Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
 

In article , Ragnusen Ultred
wrote:

Vector. Raster. Graphics won't make a bit of difference in this
application.

yes it does.

What matters is that a score of people have to edit it, without learning
any new tools, and the single file that they edit has to have the fonts
embedded since the main edit will be text for heaven's sake.

And the Mac just can't do that.

oh yes it can.