Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]

> > > > > Don't know. I found it in the manual.
> > > > > I couldn't see anything in the area of the menus I expected to
see it,
> > > > > so I typed 'transpa' in the manual and found it.
> > > > 
> > > > I typed `transparency', and didn't.
> > > 
> > > I get a couple of hits for that too, so we have different manuals.
> > 
> > So we?  I got a couple of hits - but neither was any use.
> 
> ahh, ok, I thought you meant you had none.

I found nothing that told me how to `do transparency' is what I meant by
`I didn't find it' in response to your comment.

> > > My
> > > manual was one that came with my 1.25DP mac in 2003.
> > 
> > Really?  Hmm.  In which case, I should have the same full version of
the
> > manual available somehow, on some Apple OS installer.  Shame I
probably
> > can't get to it, since the Mac in question didn't last very long.
> 
> Mine was retired a few months ago, for an iMac 24". However, it is still
> working.

You can use the installer for your 24" iMac on a different model?  Oh!

> > > > > It actually told me the tool was in a different place (it said 2
> > > > > up), but once I knew it was there it was easy enough to find it
> > > > > (not that the icon said 'transparency' in my head).
> > > > 
> > > > Such icons all need to be learnt: most of them don't make proper
sense.
> > > 
> > > But within that some are common between applications, like the
letter T
> > > for text, some kind of pen or pencil for line, or a paint pot for
fill.
> > 
> > I recall icons like that from MacDraw II and MacPaint (from the
distant
> > past), but they don't appear in any other Mac applications as I use
> > them.
> 
> They appear in all the adobe/macromedia applications, pixelmator and a
> few other utilities that I have, so from here it seems normal.

Normal if you are familiar with that kind of application, yes.

The point is that they have to be learnt - you've learnt them, I
haven't.

> > > > > It was on page 149 of the 'hagens' manual, whatever that was.
> > > > > Actually that was an odd thing looking at the manuals. I just
> > > > > wanted the manual, but the first option was 'Open hagens
manual'.
> > > > 
> > > > I've only got the demo of the manual, whatever that means.
> > > 
> > > I guess it means you don't get page 149!
> > 
> > "This file is an excerpt from Hagen Henke's guide and 
> > contains pages 1-6 and 90-96. 
> > You can order the complete book in PDF format from 
> > www.lemkesoft.com."
> 
> hmm.. I am sure I didn't download anything separate. Graphic converter
> is not something I use under normal cir***stances.
> I guess it was something in the apple installed version.
[snip]

I'm using the Apple bundled version right now.

> > > > > > > I don't tend to have custom icons but I reinstalled my wifes
> > > > > > > macbook to try and cure the wifi issues (it didn't) and she
has
> > > > > > > them all over the palace
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All over the palace, eh?  Moved up the property ladder, then?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Wish we had, then we would have all the chavs falling into the
moat
> > > > > outside!
> > > > 
> > > > Not much correlation between `palace' and `moat'.
> > > 
> > > No, I was thinking of castle.
> > 
> > I've not met many castles with moats - at least, not with moats
> > containing water.
> 
> I have been to castles with moats containing water, and castles that
> used to have water, although most moats were dry so you could shoot
> people in there.
> I spent most of my childhood being dragged from one castle to the next.
> My dad was keen on the things.

I was keen on them as a child and still am.  Never saw many moats
containing water.

[snip]

> > > > TeX isn't that big.  That's a full TeX distribution.  A basic
LaTeX
> > > > distribution - essentially, TeX with the minimum extras - can be
put on
> > > > a handful of floppy discs (I think the smallest I've seen is two
> > > > floppies).
> > > 
> > > That isn't very clear on the website. 
> > 
> > <puzzled>  Well, why should they explain that?
> 
> Why shouldn't they?

<very puzzled>

Because there's no reason at all to do so?

> >  You're being offered a
> > full TeX distribution, because `that's what people want these days'.
> 
> Well, I didn't so that is obviously not the case.

<surprised>  No, when I wrote the above, I meant `people in general' -
not everyone, but most people.

And while I'm at it: what *exactly* did you want, then?  What precisely
was it that you wanted removed from the TeX distribution that's on
offer?

[snip]

> > >It seems much more 'here is the
> > > download, it is 744Mb'. 
> > 
> > Yes, that's right.  What else?  You get offered the standard full
distro
> > with a Mac installer.
> > 
> > <shrug>  I'm very puzzled.
> > 
> > >Tried it anyway. It started downloading at
> > > 338k/s,
> > 
> > Seems like about the data rate one would expect, too.
> 
> Maybe you, not me. I expected faster than that. Why would I expect
> 338k/s?

<very very puzzled>  Just how fast do you think the server is?  I don't
expect to see a high data rate from any single server - and that's about
the data rate I often see downloading from Apple.

> > > so I thought I would reboot the rooter, as it has been a bit
> > > slow recently. 
> > 
> > I don't understand this bit.  Why didn't you just leave it to
download?
> > It would have turned up in less than an hour.
> 
> Because it was on my laptop and I couldn't leave my laptop open for an
> hour, so I thought if it was going to go slowly I needed to download it
> on a desktop.

Ah.  You use a different definition of `slowly' to me.

> > >After that it wouldn't download anymore.
> > > I guess I will try it later.
> > 
> > <http://mirror.ctan.org/systems/mac/mactex/MacTeX.dmg>
> > 
> > is downloading here at - so far - an average data rate of 600+ kB/s.
> 
> Yes, I downloaded it later at that speed. So I guess you must have been
> suprised as you said you would expect around 338k/s

<very puzzled again>  No, 600+kB/s is around about 338kB/s as far as
handwaving regarding this sort of thing goes.  Double or half the data
rate is `about the same'; ten times or a tenth isn't.

The first modem I ever used was, erm, I think a 1200 baud job.  Think
about it.

> > > > Even a full TeX distribution takes up less space than MS Office,
and it
> > > > makes much more efficient use of CPU and RAM.
> > > 
> > > I have no shortage of CPU and RAM, so that really doesn't matter to
me.
> > 
> > But you seem to have been whinging about the size of the TeX distro.
> 
> <puzzled> why does the download size have anything to do with the CPU or
> RAM?

Crossed wires somewhere.

> > > I also have to have office anyway, so I am not saving anything.
> > 
> > If no part of MS Office is running, you're saving CPU.  You might say
> > that doesn't matter - well, I find it an affront to my sensibilities
to
> > have an application idling but using CPU anyway.
> > 
> > TeX doesn't idle.  It runs, then stops.
> 
> Obviously, it is a processor rather than an editor.

MS Word processes as you edit.

> > > > Another point is that if you want access to fancy typography,
XeTeX is
> > > > one of the easier ways of doing it on Macs as far as I can tell
for all
> > > > that it's completely anti-wysiwyg and generally `not the Mac way
at
> > > > all'.  At least it works properly (more or less), which is more
than you
> > > > can say for the Apple-supplied fancy typography tools I've looked
at.
> > > > 
> > > > If you don't care about that, but want access to high quality
> > > > typesetting, you only have two choices: TeX (any flavour) and
InDesign -
> > > > those two are in the same league as each other, and nothing else
> > > > available comes close.  InDesign takes more space on disc, takes
more
> > > > CPU, and costs infinitely more ('cos TeX's free).
> > > 
> > > I have indesign as well, just not on this machine.
> > 
> > Don't use anything else for your text output, then.  TeX or InDesign -
> > you've got access to the best of the best, so don't use the ****e.
> 
> Depends on what you want your text output to be. Some of my text output
> (and input) has to be in word format.

Can't InDesign work with that format?

> Which is a shame, but it pays the bills.
> 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > > > > Still, I tend to grab the real calculator any time I need to
do a
> > > > > > bit of arithmetic.  It's a lot quicker to use.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Thing is, that's what Mac Help appears to tell me to
do.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Ahh.. never read that!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > <shrug>  What else can one do?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Play around with it until it works generally.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've tried that with Graphic Converter for many many years and
you
> > > > > > know what?  I can't get it to work as I want.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Same here, which is probably one of the reasons I never use
graphic
> > > > > converter. In fact I greatly dislike it.
> > > > 
> > > > But what else is there?
> > > 
> > > Well, I use photoshop but i have other tools as well.
> > 
> > Photoshop is inaccessible to most people due to the price.  What else
is
> > there?
> 
> Pixelmator works ok. 

Hmm!  Righto - ta for the pointer.

> > > > FWIW, it does the job of converting between formats very nicely,
thanks.
> > > 
> > > It does. Not as good as debabilizer used to do on OS7, but that is
long
> > > gone.
> > 
> > For the jobs I had, I always preferred Graphic Converter to
DeBabelizer
> > (which I think I have somewhere).  What do you think DeBabelizer was
> > better at?  ISTR GKON being able to do stuff that DeBabelizer couldn't
> > do at all.
> 
> DeBabilizer had a few formats I used that graphic converter couldnt' do.
> I don't remember what they were now, but I know that graphic converter
> wouldn't do it. It also had more controlls over format and a few other
> tools.
> It was also easier to use.

I found Graphic Converter much easier to use than DeBabelizer (a much
more sensible and controllable approach, I found), and I found it gave
me more control over format and had a few tools that DeBabelizer lacked.

Graphic Converter could also handle a few formats that DeBabelizer
couldn't, from what I recall.

And in any case, DeBabelizer always felt a bit dodgy to me.

Rowland.


-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
                            http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking