Seen on another forum:

I guess I threw Adobe Inc into a tizzy yesterday. I "hit the wall" with something their programmers never anticipated. It seems that the security folks at Adobe that are responsible for writing the code for CS3 Activation put a limit on the number of times you can Activate/Deactivate your software. (I like to keep a deactivated copy on my backup in case my main drive fails so I don't lose one of my 2 activations)

I always try to remember to deactivate CS3 before making a SuperDuper backup so yesterday I tried to deactivate and got a big old dialog box telling me the Deactivation Failed - error 194:14 (I think it was) and to call Adobe tech support. After explaining what I was doing, they looked in my "records" (yes big brother keeps track) and said I had already deactivated CS3 21 times and that is the LIMIT.

Excuse me? Some programmer thought it would be good to put a limit on the number of times you can do this? Through the phone conversations, I got the feeling that this had never happened before and they weren't sure how to handle it. I got up to a level 6 tech support and Dan (very nice guy) said he would reset my activation counts, but I would have to completely erase CS3 using CS3Clean script at level 3 then reinstall. Arrrgh!!! All my brushes, tool presets, textures, styles. actions to reload.

I just want to thank the security programmers at Adobe for screwing up my day.

Wait a minute.  What did I misunderstand?

You said that "with Leopard I no longer have iPhoto, iWeb, iMovie, iDVD, or Garage Band."  Yes, you do--as you said above, when you said "we understand perfectly".

Then what are we talking about here, if you're not actually missing the iLife programs???  Your old programs work fine, do they not?  So either keep them installed during the upgrade, or else reinstall them after the format and install.

????

I think y'all are missing something here.

iLife comes with every Macintosh computer.  Period.  You may install iLife at any time from the discs that come with the computer.  You may also reinstall the operating system that came with the computer.

When you go to the store and plunk down $129 for the new version of the OS, THAT doesn't include iLife.  You can upgrade your computer with the retail package (I do Archive and Install), and of course the iLife appls you have will remain.  But if you use the new retail OS disc to wipe your hard drive and install the new OS from scratch, the iLife apps aren't on the retail OS disc to install.  So you have to go back to the discs that came with your computer and reinstall whatever version of iLife came with your computer, or else go out and buy a retail iLife package.

Got it?

What Joe said.

Why won't Preps help?

Doesn't the "color copy" thing have its own imposition?  Does anyone know?  Did anyone bother to ask?

Absolutely.  Screened one bit TIFFs are not suited to that.

Mostly, conventional offset workflows are just as you describe--driving finishing nails with a sledgehammer.  Or, maybe more accurately, stretching carpet with a sledgehammer.  It doesn't make any sense.

Postscript and PDF are your friends in the digital world.  Virtually all of them have their own imposition, and they all do their own screening that's unique to the engine at hand.  You can color manage yourself, or you can have the system's RIP manage color.

File-print across the network and/or dropping in PDFs are the workflows of choice for digital.  If that makes it a network printer, so be it.

There are lots of ways to manufacture a product the customer is asking to buy, and sometimes there's very little commonality among the processes.

(please don't tell me that it must be true because he makes no mention of it in his bio...)

Snopes has a reputation on things like this.  Individuals also have a reputation, going way back, of re-telling stories that they heard from a friend of a friend of some guy whose dentist heard it from his brother's dog-walker.  (There are some very recent news stories about such, within the context of the US presidential race.)

I vote gullible, but I do so with the full knowledge and acknowledgement that I could be completely wrong.  It could be 100% true, and it could be your guy.

But Snopes has never let me down, either.  Snopes also quotes sources.

I suppose I could call your guy, too.

[edit] Oh, wait a minute--did you speak to the artist, or merely to his brother?  I'm confused.  But if you spoke only to his brother, that would wrap it up for me.

Eh.  "Print manufacturing equipment" then.  Whatever.

by the way, the digital equipment that was mainstream 7 years ago is so much junk on the pile.  In that way, it does differ from offset.  The only place you're ever going to find an 80 year old piece of digital equipment, when it gets that old, is in a museum.  And it won't be functional.  In that respect, digital print manufacturing equipment differs from analog print manufacturing equipment.

I guess the question is, what unique characteristic defines a piece of manufacturing equipment as a "press"?  Next thing you know, we'll have the litho guy and the flexo guy beating on each other, with the gravure guy crying in the corner, all screaming "MINE IS! YOURS ISN'T!"

And as the article says, the guy buying the job doesn't buy a manufacturing method, he buys a print job.  So who cares what it's called?  Just don't call me later for supper, and don't pay the bill late.

Quote from: Joe  on April 07, 2008, 09:08:44 AMNo. There is a difference between a REAL digital press and a REAL color copier.

Here is an interesting article over at American Printer:

Is it a COPIER, PRESS or DIGITAL PRINTING DEVICE?

That article is from 2001.  Doesn't count.  While 7 years is a pittance when you go back to Gutenberg, it's 49 lifetimes in the electronic world.  Too much has changed in the electronic world, and that article has no real meaning anymore.  I mean, as long as we're there, why don't we go post some references to reviews of filmsetters or maybe Compugraphic machines?

To the topic itself, consider that workflows that drive analog printing are mostly sheet-based, while digital devices--being able to digitally change "plates" every 0.55 seconds (for example)--are really designed with the whole document in mind.  Feeding them individual sheets, imposed or not, defeats a huge purpose of the device.

A digital device that changes plates 2 per second can produce, for example, completely bound books that are ready to ship--and can do so singly, or a few at a time.  It doesn't do you much good to drive that device with Rampage, for example.

So treat it like a network printer.  Print to it from the native application.

Or get the entire document into your workflow, but pull it out before it turns into something fully committed to a platesetter.  It's probably PDF at this point, which is probably fine.

Digital isn't there to replace (analog) offset.  It's there to do things the customers (remember them?) are asking for, things the owners are willing to sell, things that cannot be done with offset.

Yes, it's true--offset doesn't solve every need, and owners want revenue.  More to the point, the customers are out there buying output from digital devices.  They might as well buy it from your shop, and help keep the doors open and the money flowing in.  It's foolish to stick your head in the sand and ignore digital, as foolish as it would be to assume that digital will replace offset.

DCS, Snopes is your friend:

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp


If you're buying someone drinks over this, he's getting freebies he doesn't deserve.

Re this post:

https://www.b4print.com/forums/index.php?topic=1386.msg20142#msg20142

has anyone ever, in the middle of one of those days/one of those projects, gone into a good part of the file and messed with it a little, not enough to be noticed in the heat of the battle but enough to cause anguish after 20,000 have been printed?

"But we never touched THAT page!  That must be how you gave it to us!"  Signed proof?  Where?

Sometimes the mind wanders...

Oh, yeah, the geography lesson.

See?  School can be fun!

We Didn't Start the Fire--Billy Joel

I will never forget watching the news after that song first came out--it was a story about how "school children are learning history thanks to popular music".  The camera showed a classroom of, quite literally, slack-jawed ignoramuses mouthing the words as the music played in the background.

The gist of the story is that these slack-jawed ignoramuses were suddenly history geniuses thanks to the words being put into a musical form relevant to their lifestyles.  Context?  Nah, just the words are enough, thank you.

This is what public education has come to in this country.  Hey, they use the words in pop music!  Have the little creatures regurgitate the words in class!  Look, they're learning!

Quote from: Joe  on February 15, 2008, 01:43:16 AMLOL...backup? What's that? LOL  :laugh:

We didn't trash your file
It just started churning as the drive was turning
We didn't trash your file
We were just preflighting it but not rewriting it

Quite Imposing was there long before Imposal.

In other words, just because someone printed it in a magazine, doesn't make it necessarily news or useful.

Quote from: delooch on January 31, 2008, 12:00:30 AMi thought you couldn't be labeled a seasoned press operator unless you had less than 9.5 fingers..

and for you dry-toner based copy-jockeys out there, theres a report a read a few months back (i cant remember, but im trying to find it) stating how the particulates that your copiers discharge into the air are like 20x worse than cigarette smoke...  then i thought about how im locked in an unventilated basement with 6 production machines running 6 hours out of the day and what that is doing to my health.. not nearly as tragic as the incidents posted here, but still scary..  and all this time i thought my hacking cough came from other activites

They're not copiers.

Anyway, no, they're not toxic in the least--at least, they don't have to be:

http://www.xerox.com/about-xerox/citizenship/news/igen3/enus.html