Macky Jurima
Downloads: 0
Posts: 3
Smile Score: -1
About Me
I am a Free member
Gender: Male


Visit Stats
Last Visit: 6 years ago
Member Since: 14 Apr 2008
Profile Views: 483

Macky Jurima's Posts
Average Rating from Macky:
(1)

sort: smiles | time
burypromote
jurima commented on 01 Apr 2008
In reply to dettos comment:
"I can understand your statement. But don't you think its a bit of kinda unfair if the developer after 6 months (!) switches to the current platform developing his freeware(!) to shout out for a tiger version?

Thanks to the developer from my side and keep it up! Its a damn fine tool."

----

First, many thanks for your replay, detto.

You say 6 month with an added exclamation mark, I say just (only) 6 month...
I'm absolutely sure that Tiger will be in widely use for many many years, think of all the hardware that our good old grandmother Apple decided to not support with Leopard anymore.
- Buy new, throw away everything under 867 Mhz - we tried our best to support such old hardware with the absolutely groundbreaking Leopard, but sorry, no luck. Environmental pollution enforced by software (companies).
Why follow them? Hundred thousands of Mac-Users won't do, I'm sure, the golddigger-times in PC-industry will be gone shortly.

Well well, back to LiteIcon ;-)
It' just about icons here and I don't understand why bigger, now 512 pixel icons, are seen as that trailblazing ubergood innovation.
Why not let the Tiger-Users get that part of all the new icon-creations around there, that they need - let them extract/use the 128 pix and lower versions versions for their needs.

That would be very friendly.

I'm absolutely not against real innovations, but simply four times bigger icons in Leopard? Come one, where's the beef?
Why should that block my use of new icon-creations, they are available all around the web, but now - how inventive - often in iconcontainer version 3 format (Leopard only...)?
They all have the needed 128 pix resources integrated, it's just about beeing pseudo-up-to-date, for me it seems just a bit ignorant.
Up to date to what? - Apples businessplans and marketing strategies?

I think exactly here it comes to no-profit orientated freeware developers, circumvent marketing decissions of the big players that are always leeded by their insatiable money hunger.

Many words for an icon-tool...

Anyway, of course thanks for this beeing freeware.
Please Tiger it.
[Version 1.3.1]



burypromote
-1

jurima reviewed on 01 Apr 2008
So get GrahpicConverter, the old milestone an Mac, you get:

An ugly cluttered Interface, with nearly redundant pref-entries on different places • Disorganized menus •
Zoomed windows are jumping around •
Toolpalette jumping, no fixed position, always have to find it after window-switching • Zoomed Images partly hidden under toolpalette (just not in fixed position, size-changed windows hide behind it) • Stupid and absolut useless filtereffects with incorrect preview, big blast - no use • No gradation-curve, only primitive sliders for tonal-corrections • No definable colorcorrection, unuseable for photo-finetuning, just no color-finetuning • Selections can't be combinated/expanded and are very rough • Batch/action-functions very bad implemented, no chance to understand by just trying • Diashow without picture-previewzone only primitive filelist (diashow-filelist in white color - very eye-cancer-friendly in the dark/black diashow-enviroment) • No simple layer-function implemented, must still be to progressive in the new millenium.
Conclusion: absolutely not state of the art in 2008, time seems to stand still here, - since the early 90ths. Back to the future with CraphicConverter...
Was and is just an primitive imageconverter with halfbaked added useless features, - after nearly two decades of development.

Best to say: GraphicConverter is cheap in all means.
[Version 6.0.4]



burypromote
jurima commented on 01 Apr 2008
No, it's NOT fantastic,
the new version is only for Leopard BUT I think the most Mac-Users today still use another X-Version, mostly Tiger, I think.
Why let them all stand in the rain?
Is it that hard to compile the new features for use under Tiger?
Leo is just 6 month old, do we all have to upgrade immediately to use new versions of software?
Why is it needed to feed the hardware and software/OS-Orks every couple of months?
Is Tiger/Panther etc. so bad since/because Leo came out? Of course Apple and Adobe (and the Iconfactory guys) always generate their new income that way, their hunger for money rules, but why that for freeware?

In short:
Thanks for freeware but a TIGER-Version would be very nice, thank you.
[Version 1.3.1]



There are currently no troubleshooting comments by this member.

Displaying 1-3 of 3
Please login or create a new
MacUpdate Member account
to use this feature


- -