Google| Subject | Re: Next Lightroomrequires 64bit |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/31/2015 07:23 (01/31/2015 07:23) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-35f37454da9ea47c241396b1bb5ef47f@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (1h & 40m) nospam (19h & 52m) > Sandman |
In article <300120151923419725%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
Not this time. Many times you do, when people are being rude to you. But this time I wasn't and you responded by being a complete ass.Sandmannospam
I *WONDERED* what happened to your browser. I did *NOT* "blame" neither you nor your browser.
You were an asshole without a valid reason.
nope. i always have a valid reason to be an asshole :)
It is not irrelevant no matter how much you protest.nospamIncorrect.Sandmannospam: it's completely irrelevant.
The only data we have suggest that up to 12% of W7 users may be on 32 bit. I don't know how reliable that data is, and no other stats site I found have the W7 versions separated, unfortunately.
it's not relevant no matter how much you argue otherwise.
I.e. you have no data, only empty claims, like I said.nospamSandmanYou keep saying that, based on no data what so ever. So more hot air from you.
nospam: nothing that matters or adobe wouldn't have done it.
it's common sense.
I.e. you have no data to support your position, like I said. Only hot air.Since you have presented no data, it is an assumption by definition.nospam: it's not an assumption.SandmanBased on no actual data, of course, just assumption.
nospam: the number of people who run win7 on older 32 bit hardware is very low, particularly adobe users, close enough to zero to be considered zero.Present data and make it more than an assumption.nospam
ask microsoft. this is well known.
Incorrect.nospamIncorrect.nospam: it's not indicative at all.SandmanBecause it's the only data I *could* find. No other site seems to separate them. And while not relevant to the general PC population, it's at least indicative to some extent.
nospam: then why did you cite them?
nope.
Another claim from you without data to support it. You're up to what, ten of those claims in this thread alone?nospamSandmanIncorrect. I am an Adobe user and a Steam user. I am not the only one, logically.
nospam: you did a quickie search and pick the first result, one which is totally irrelevant.
you're in a minority.
i didn't say there's *no* overlap."Totally irrelevant" suggests there is no overlap. "Not very relevant" might be a more apt description for your position. You keep making explicit claims you can't back up.
You have thus far been 100% unable to do so in that area.nospamSandman
nospam: that's how you end up at shitty restaurants. you find a link that says some restaurant is good, oblivious to it being a shill review and not surprisingly, it turns out to be not great.your research skills suck.And yours is non-existant. You have yet to find a good restaurant or better data on W7 64 bit usage.
i have *zero* problems finding excellent restaurants.
here's a hint: you don't just put in 'good restaurants' into a search engine and hope to get useful results.Yes, you have been 100% unsuccessful to outline a research method that would find good restaurants in that area. I know.
I would, if I had claimed they were. As it is, I haven't.nospamSandmanMore hot air and no data from you.
nospam: steam customers and adobe customers are *worlds* different. there is likely to be very little overlap in the two.
prove that steam customer usage is identical to adobe.
oh right, there is no such proof.Just as there is no proof that they are "*worlds* different", which is more hot air from you.
Again, no data. What you call "common sense" is irrelevant to the explicit claim that requires data to support it.nospamSandman
nospam: adobe knows *exactly* what their customer base is far better than you or anyone else does and they would not drop 32 bit support if it made a difference. it doesn't.it's a complete non-issue.A claim from you based on exactly no data.
it's common sense.
why the hell would adobe shoot themselves in the foot? the may not be perfect, but they're not that stupid.No one has claimed they would shoot themselves in the foot.
you, however, is a different story.Yes, I work with facts, support and substantiation for my claims, and I don't make explicit claims I can't support. That's your department.
-- Sandman
01/30/2015-
