Photoshop installation error

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:13:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Is an abacus also a computer?
How about the comptometer?

Actually, both are calculators. To turn them into computers their
calculating
function should be programable, and automatic. Neither one has the ability
to
do that, so they remain calculators, not computers.


Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were not
programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

My understanding is that conditional branching was one of the key
defining traits.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:13:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Is an abacus also a computer?
How about the comptometer?

Actually, both are calculators. To turn them into computers their
calculating
function should be programable, and automatic. Neither one has the ability
to
do that, so they remain calculators, not computers.


Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were not
programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were not
programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 09:33:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were not
programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were
not programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.

no it definitely doesn't, particularly this time.

at what point does a subroutine become a program?

some functions on the more advanced calculators are very sophisticated
programs, invoked with a tap of a button, and on some calculators, can
be assigned to a button of the user's choosing.

for programmable calculators, the functions are without any question
*not* subroutines, but full fledged programs, and may internally have
subroutines within them.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:59:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were
not programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.

no it definitely doesn't, particularly this time.

at what point does a subroutine become a program?

When it can run on its own.

some functions on the more advanced calculators are very sophisticated
programs, invoked with a tap of a button, and on some calculators, can
be assigned to a button of the user's choosing.

for programmable calculators, the functions are without any question
*not* subroutines, but full fledged programs, and may internally have
subroutines within them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were
not programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.

no it definitely doesn't, particularly this time.

at what point does a subroutine become a program?

When it can run on its own.

no program can run on its own.

programs need an operating system, which does happen to run on its own,
therefore by your definition, the os must be a program, with everything
else nothing but a bunch of subroutines.

in other words, your definition is wrong.

some functions on the more advanced calculators are very sophisticated
programs, invoked with a tap of a button, and on some calculators, can
be assigned to a button of the user's choosing.

for programmable calculators, the functions are without any question
*not* subroutines, but full fledged programs, and may internally have
subroutines within them.

i see you ignored this part.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 00:03:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they were
not programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and they
do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone would
consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines which
can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.

no it definitely doesn't, particularly this time.

at what point does a subroutine become a program?

When it can run on its own.

no program can run on its own.

Playing the village idiot again?

Insisting on exact literal interpretations just for this thread and
just for the sake of argument?

programs need an operating system, which does happen to run on its own,
therefore by your definition, the os must be a program, with everything
else nothing but a bunch of subroutines.

in other words, your definition is wrong.

You should start with the boot loader, or maybe go back to the BIOS

some functions on the more advanced calculators are very sophisticated
programs, invoked with a tap of a button, and on some calculators, can
be assigned to a button of the user's choosing.

for programmable calculators, the functions are without any question
*not* subroutines, but full fledged programs, and may internally have
subroutines within them.

i see you ignored this part.

The functions in a programmable calculator can be called on from the
keyboard and used as required. If you can write a program that calls
on them and links them then the machine is computer and the functions
are subroutines.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they
were not programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and
they do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone
would consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines
which can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.

no it definitely doesn't, particularly this time.

at what point does a subroutine become a program?

When it can run on its own.

no program can run on its own.

Playing the village idiot again?

Insisting on exact literal interpretations just for this thread and
just for the sake of argument?

that's *your* strategy.

programs need an operating system, which does happen to run on its own,
therefore by your definition, the os must be a program, with everything
else nothing but a bunch of subroutines.

in other words, your definition is wrong.

You should start with the boot loader, or maybe go back to the BIOS

you're moving the goalposts, again.

modern computers don't have a bios and calculators don't have either
one, but for computers that did, they are for loading the operating
system, not for running programs.

some functions on the more advanced calculators are very sophisticated
programs, invoked with a tap of a button, and on some calculators, can
be assigned to a button of the user's choosing.

for programmable calculators, the functions are without any question
*not* subroutines, but full fledged programs, and may internally have
subroutines within them.

i see you ignored this part.

The functions in a programmable calculator can be called on from the
keyboard and used as required. If you can write a program that calls
on them and links them then the machine is computer and the functions
are subroutines.

nope.

calculator programs have subroutines *within* them.

calculator programs can also run other programs.

calculator programs can also be assigned to physical buttons as well as
loaded and saved on magnetic cards or other storage.

some of the functions assigned to buttons from the factory are very
sophisticated programs.

hewlett-packard calls them programs, as does the hp user base.

they're called 'programmable calculators', not 'subroutineable
calculators'.

calculator programs are in every way, programs.

are you going to claim that inserting a magnetic card or a module adds
subroutines and not programs?

yet another one of your pointless semantic arguments.

On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:23:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Both are programmable, but not necessarily by the user. If they
were not programmable, they would not calculate.

The criteron is whether or not they employ a stored program, and
they do not.

ones which the user can add/delete.

the calculator's built in programs, such as financial calculations,
does not mean a financial calculator is a computer. it's just an
advanced calculator.

however, as i said, the line gets fuzzy with programmable calculators,
which can store user created programs, but are not what someone
would consider a computer.

They are not really stored programs: they are stored subroutines
which can be called on as desired.

semantics, again.

Yep. And this time it matters.

no it definitely doesn't, particularly this time.

at what point does a subroutine become a program?

When it can run on its own.

no program can run on its own.

Playing the village idiot again?

Insisting on exact literal interpretations just for this thread and
just for the sake of argument?

that's *your* strategy.

I try to write what I mean. It's difficult to deal with someone who
writes in general terms and then in the course of an argument settles
on a specific meaning from within a range of broad possibilities.

programs need an operating system, which does happen to run on its own,
therefore by your definition, the os must be a program, with everything
else nothing but a bunch of subroutines.

in other words, your definition is wrong.

You should start with the boot loader, or maybe go back to the BIOS

you're moving the goalposts, again.

Not at all. Not even operating systems can run on their own.

modern computers don't have a bios ...

Nor do some ancient ones.

Toodle-oo to EUFI too

and calculators don't have either
one, but for computers that did, they are for loading the operating
system, not for running programs.

And programs are for running subroutines (and also functions).

some functions on the more advanced calculators are very sophisticated
programs, invoked with a tap of a button, and on some calculators, can
be assigned to a button of the user's choosing.

for programmable calculators, the functions are without any question
*not* subroutines, but full fledged programs, and may internally have
subroutines within them.

i see you ignored this part.

The functions in a programmable calculator can be called on from the
keyboard and used as required. If you can write a program that calls
on them and links them then the machine is computer and the functions
are subroutines.

nope.

calculator programs have subroutines *within* them.

Big programs have little programs designed to run inside 'em
Little programs have lesser programs and so ad infinitum.

calculator programs can also run other programs.

See.

calculator programs can also be assigned to physical buttons as well as
loaded and saved on magnetic cards or other storage.

Oh, I loved my HP41C.

some of the functions assigned to buttons from the factory are very
sophisticated programs.

hewlett-packard calls them programs, as does the hp user base.

they're called 'programmable calculators', not 'subroutineable
calculators'.

Subroutines are not programs?

calculator programs are in every way, programs.

are you going to claim that inserting a magnetic card or a module adds
subroutines and not programs?

Now you are being silly.

yet another one of your pointless semantic arguments.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens