Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

"Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1ijipex.1o835kd1te03dwN%real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > 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.

Ah, ok.

> > 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!

No, my 1.25DP was retired and a 24" iMac was put in its place. I haven't tried the installer for that on anything else.
But I just copied the files from the powermac to the 24" iMac, where I didn't have new versions, and it all worked fine.

Actually for a lot of it I probably used the migration assistant.

> > > 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.

I hated them with a passion when I was a child. Nothing worse than having to go round another castle.
Now I have no real feelings about them either way. I certainly don't have the hatred for history I had when I was young.

[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?

Well, why have a website if you are not going to explain anything, why not just dump the files on an ftp server?

> 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?

I had no idea, it didn't say what was in it, it just seemed very large for something that just processed text.
As you say, it has image magik. I didn't want that, as I already have it. I am sure there are other bits too.

[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.

I don't understand what Apple have to do with it?
When I downloaded it later it came down much faster, so it seems it was a reasonable thing to do.

> > 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.

slowly (to me) is a proportion. If something can happen in 10 minutes, but it is taking 30 minutes, then it is happening slowly.
I needed to be able to shut my laptop within 15 minutes, so it was too slow to be able to do that, so I had to do it in another way.

> >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.

double is 'about the same'? not in my world it isn't. 300-400 are about the same.
My line is ok up to about 700kB/s, so if it is going at 600, that is good, if it is going at 300 then that is slow.
If that is all the other end is capable of then fair enough, but it isn't, it was just my router or line slowing down.

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

I have thought about it, but what point are you trying to make?
My first modem was slower than that, but it has no bearing on my connection now.
Or are you saying I should be happy that it downloaded in less than a month?

I am truly happy that my network connections are faster than they were 20 years ago, but it really has nothing to do whether my router is working well now.

> > > 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.

ok

> > 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.

It does, like pretty well any editor.

> > > 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 ***.

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?

no. Or at least not to a level I need, and I don't blame it for that, as it is not a format I would chose to have anything to do with if I had the choice.
Unfortunatley the only thing that deals with word format on the level I need is word.

> [snip]

> > > > > 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.

err, ok, we are doing the copy and repeat game now are we?!

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

DeBabelizer was possibly a bit more flakey than graphic converter, but it was the only thing that did the job I needed it to do for a while, so that is what I went for. Then I got photoshop 1.9, and that was great.

--
Woody

.