Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Mxsmanic wrote:
David J Taylor writes:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Essentially everything worth having can be bought.

Happiness? Good health?

Yes, both.

How much money to reverse the damage done by a bullet,
passing through the brain and just crippling you for life?

How much more money to help Howard Huges?

How much money to undo the damage of a car accident, leaving
you paralysed from the neck down?

How much money for you to stop posting?

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Oh, there are many. Lots more than Mac fanatics.

I don't know of any Windows fanatics, except perhaps Steve Ballmer.

That you don't know a lot of things has become clear.

Nonsensical. Most people have no interest in cars, maybe even
don't know how to check the oil, but form a strong emotional
attachment.

I don't know many people with an emotional attachment to cars.

Because you don't see it happening.

For many
people, they are just transportation, and for some, they are a source of
frustration as well, a necessary evil.

And?

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
George Kerby writes:

Look in the mirror when you say that.

I'm not a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. If I were, I wouldn't
still be running XP.

You're running Vista then, because it's great?
Or running 7, because it's even geater?

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:39:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Ah, so choice *is* bad.

The more homogenous the user base, the lower the TCO.

And the more varied, the more you need to be able to adapt
to certain users. What Linux offers, to the point that MS is
afraid of the versatility:
http://blog.schatenseite.de/wp-conte...60227_msad.jpg

I doubt if MS is afraid of the versatility.

Of course they are. The same source code runs on
supercomputer (and quite many of them), on dektops, on
routers, on embedded machines, on phones. And on many
different hardware designs. Windows cannot match that.

The so-called
'versatility' is makes it more difficult to sell as a uniform
interface suitable for 40,000 workstations across the globe.

Let's also premark ballots, choice just confuses informed
buyers, what will it do to unwashed masses? And let's
standardise the world to speak chinese, too.

I'll not even mention the many dozens of solutions that mak
the choice for you and don't mention that any IT staff that
can use a keyboard can lock down all the 40,000 workstations
to a single, unalterable, fixed interface.

I know of
course that it doesn't have to be a disadvantage but if the
'versatility' is seen at all, its seen as yet another problem.

Study, cite?

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Whisky-dave writes:

Once you have umpteen thousands of dollars invested in applications, it's
very, very unlikely that you'll junk it all just to change to a different OS
out of emotional appeal, or even for any one specific application. It's just
too expensive and frustrating.

One of the reasons I prefer open source. Not only is it
often ported to other OSses, it also usually doesn't cost
umpteen thousands of dollars every time it's copied.

I don't mind paying for the (continuing) development process,
but then I do want to have some say there and not just one from
the mercy of some anonymous salesweasel.


They still are, although windows 7 is better than previous versions.

I actually find Windows 7 to be a step slightly backwards, but that is in part
due to greater security (which is a good thing, but isn't very ergonomic).

News: Windows 7 is worse than Vista, Mxsmanic says!


You might as well say it doesn't matter what a car looks like as long
as it gets you from A-B.

Yes!

But it does. Salt and bird droppings ruin the protective
coating, and you probably would object to a "Buy Apple, Macs
can run more software than Windows, Windows is insecure crap"
painting.

Do you care what you drive or what clothes you wear?

No. They need only fulfill their function. What they look like is irrelevant.

Low social graces. Maybe time to spend time with real people?

Do you care what you eat as long as it provides you with enough energy
to work.

No.

Does't care for own health, doesn't know enjoyment.

Are you one of those that only drink when you are thirsty too ?

Yes.

Cannot relax.

It seems very important in the advertising work too

The world is roughly divided into artists and engineers. I'm an engineer.

For an engineer you make too many stupid mistakes.

And an engineer would quote using the known best practices,
especially after being told about them.

-Wolfgang

Ray Fischer wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

Especially if they have large data sets that a 32-bit system
has ... trouble accessing.

read significantly: "if you're lucky, you can even measure it".

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

I see. Now, assume I am Joe Windowsprogrammer. I need to get
Windows to work on some processor and hardware architecture
it's not been ported to. Fortunately, I am moderately rich.
What do I do?

Why would you want to port it?

You're evading the question.

You're not answering the question. Before you base your argument on the need
to port something, you have to establish why the port is necessary.

I take your smoke grenade as an admission that it's not possible.

Chalk that up to the things you cannot buy.


In Open Source Land, the answer is: "Check if someone is
already working on it, grab the source, code (or let code).

See?

That would argue against Windows, as it needs support.

The vast majority of Windows users never require support.

... from MS, as they get support from their dealer, friends,
internal IT/helpdesk department, etc.

That's true for anyone using any computer system. In fact, it's particularly
true for geek systems like Linux, but even the Mac requires this.

Linux isn't a geek system any more. Hasn't been for years.
Of course, needing help with Windows is commonplace ... as most people use
Windows by susperstition, since it's hard to grasp.

As always in the
support world, five percent of users generate about 95% of calls.

And?

And the other 95% of users never use the vendor's technical support, so its
presence is irrelevant.

So the claim "Linux has no vendor/commercial support" (which is
utterly wrong, btw.) should have zero impact, as most people never
use it. Right?


Sure. There are also dozens of versions of Windows: Windows
1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, ...

Windows does not have "distributions."

See the other reply: it has. Lots of. Unstandardized ones.

No reply?

In fact, I can't think of any OS that
has such a concept, except Linux.

BSD.

BSD does not have distributions.

OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, BSDi ...

And that's because Linux itself isn't a
complete operating system.

Linux-the-kernel isn't.
GNU/Linux is --- and a lot more than Windows.

Whereas Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate contains every product
you need for a production environment: Office, compilers,
IDEs, Perl, Python, PHP, webserver, debugger, database, virus
scanners, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. etc. etc.

I haven't looked at what Windows 7 contains, but it doesn't contain all that.

But you are aware that Linux distributions offer exactly
that: every product you need for a production environment?

Photoshop, Avid Media Composer, Flight Simulator?

In which production environment do you need "Flight Simulator"?
(And yes, Linux has multiple flight simulators, too)

And no, Windows doesn't contain Photoshop. Not even GIMP
And no, Windows doesn't contain Media Composer. Not even PiTiVi or
Lombard.

It contains all the system software you need, however.

If you define "system software" as "is contained in Windows".
You are aware of Windows Sysinternals?

Yes.

So MS itself bought something you don't need, since Windows already
contains all the system software you need?

There is, however, no standard for Windows: just what MS
decides should be done.

Same thing.

Sure. Just like chess: the rules are as I randomly decide to
play the game, ever changing. It's the same thing as, say,
published rules to be abided by all.

No answer. I see.

Ah, so choice *is* bad.

The more homogenous the user base, the lower the TCO.

And the more varied, the more you need to be able to adapt
to certain users. What Linux offers, to the point that MS is
afraid of the versatility:
http://blog.schatenseite.de/wp-conte...60227_msad.jpg

No words?

Like Linux?

Linux has a single code base just for the kernel.

You'll have to decide at some point if you mean by "Linux"
"just the kernel" or "a/any Linux based distribution". Until
you do, I'll choose the interpretation that favours me.

Other operating systems have
a single code base for the entire OS.

Hmhm. Sure. Several single code bases, in fact, for each
program one. Sort of like Linux.
Code bases from different vendors for different products.
Sort of like Linux.
Code bases that are unavailable for almost all people.
Unlike Linux.

I see you stand silent.

Which interface?

The user interface.

Which users? Pointy-clicky, CLI, programmer, ...?

And refuse to answer. Hard to grasp that Linux has programmers and
CLI users as well as GUI users and that programs support that.

-Wolfgang

On 2011-06-08 19:58:36 -0700, Mxsmanic said:

Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

A Mxsmanic preemptive edit

In which production environment do you need "Flight Simulator"?

A flight school, for example.

There are some "flight simulators" other than the MS variety.
Here is one taking in the entire spectrum from screwing around up to
FAA certified levels, on OSX, Windows PC, and Linux.
http://www.x-plane.com/

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

One of the reasons I prefer open source. Not only is it
often ported to other OSses, it also usually doesn't cost
umpteen thousands of dollars every time it's copied.

Unfortunately, support is often unavailable

Same for proprietary, no longer supported systems.

or unsatisfactory,

And with proprietay systems, you can't even hire someone to
untangle that mess, and often enough can't move your data to
a better system.

and development
is random and not always in the directions that the user base might prefer.

This is no different with propietary systems. Fortunately,
you can often pay the developer to implement your whishes, or,
failing that, pay another expert to do so. Try that with
closed source.

Additionally, bugs are sometimes fixed only if a developer can be found that
is willing to do so, rather than regularly and consistently (most code
writers, especially the kiddies, only like to write new code, and hate to
debug or fix old code).

Proprietary software sometimes does not even fix security bugs,
and some companies have to have their security bugs published
repeatedly until they learn to fix them within months.

After all, features sell ... bugfixes don't bring morey

News: Windows 7 is worse than Vista, Mxsmanic says!

It is a step backwards with respect to XP. I've never run Vista. I only run
Windows 7 at work, and only because XP was no longer available when those
machines were purchased.

See, if XP was open source, it would still be available, up
to date and improved where it lacked and you'd have commercial
support from dozens of companies, competing with each other on
good support and low prices.

-Wolfgang

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:34Â*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Whisky-dave writes:
Once you have umpteen thousands of dollars invested in applications, it's
very, very unlikely that you'll junk it all just to change to a different OS
out of emotional appeal, or even for any one specific application. It's just
too expensive and frustrating.

It appeared I wrote the above but I didn't .....But I do agree with
it.

Mxsmanic wrote it, as shown by the indention marks. You are
quoted further below, which is why you are in the attributions.

One of the reasons I prefer open source. Â*Not only is it
often ported to other OSses, it also usually doesn't cost
umpteen thousands of dollars every time it's copied.

People do prefer different things for different reasons,
most prefer MS Office as they are familiar with it.

Time to learn LyX, then. :-)

It's a bit like a keyboard we all seem to prefer QWERTY but why
surely a ABCDEF arrangement would be better or perhaps
one of those new designs that weren't designed to limit typing speeds.

Dvorak. ABCDEF would likely not be better. QWERTZ and friends
are designed to move letters next to each other to larger spacial
distances on the keyboard, so typewriters wouldn't jam.

You might as well say it doesn't matter what a car looks like as long
as it gets you from A-B.
Yes!

But it does.

Yep otherwise why produce them in different colours.

"You can have any color, as long as the color is black" ... they
tried it.

Do you care what you drive or what clothes you wear?
No. They need only fulfill their function. What they look like is irrelevant.

Low social graces. Â*Maybe time to spend time with real people?

Maybe it';s best he doesn't, clothes function and look do serve
purposes,
I'm not sure the armed forces would choose pink to camouflage
themselves
very often, so I';m not sure pink combats would be very useful except
perhaps
amongst the gay or 'strange' community for leisure wear.

Waah! Eye cancer! Please decide on one line length!

And yes, he should spend time around real people, maybe even get
laid (as long as he practices birth control!), learn how people
really react to him, etc.


It seems very important in the advertising work too
The world is roughly divided into artists and engineers. I'm an engineer.

For an engineer you make too many stupid mistakes.

I agree, but I have a higher regard for artist than to call him one.

He tries to be a nerd. He's got the ego part overdone,
the knowledge very underdone and the presumptive age of 17.
He hasn't yet understood he's lonely because of his social graces,
and loves the attention here.

-Wolfgang