On Apr 27, 8:49=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 7:17 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> > On 4/27/2012 6:55 AM, Dave wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:52:18 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >>> Just seeing the home screen was enough for mt to not even consider
> >>> upgrading.
>
> >> Doubt I'll even consider looking at Windows 8. The past decade or so,
> >> I've upgraded most every second release and it's worked out very well.
>
> > Yeah I can't complain, I went from 98se to XP to 7. IMHO XP was the
> > first Windows program that worked reasonably well. Although 3.1 was not
> > terrible.
>
> Add another "1" to that and I'll agree with you. Win3.11, "Windows for
> Workgroups", was when I finally switched from DOS to Windows ... but it
> took me until Win95 to stop using CLI, and then I still dropped out for
> admin and network stuff.
>
> > If nothing else boot ans shut down with 7 is extremely fast for me, by
> > comparison. Although my primary boot drivce is solid state.
>
> The most solid Window OS I ever ran were WinNT, 4 and up; and, strangely
> enough, Vista. I never had the problems with Vista that all the unwashed
> masses, fanbois and commentards did, and still have two laptops running
> it here at the house with far, far fewer problems than Win7 ... which
> still couldn't even make the change to DST without a three day hassle.
>
> MSFT, under the dickhead Ballmer, sucks and has lost whatever innovation
> it had ...
>
> --www.eWoodShop.com
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
When I bought my CNC, I needed to take a PC based laptop to attend a
couple of seminars and to take official possession of the associated
software. The one I bought came with Vista. The CNC itself runs on XP
Pro and the PC based workstation, all tricked out with dual monitors
and screaming video card, runs on Win7. I see no reason to change any
of it. XP is hard core as it is stripped of everything, never goes
online (It couldn't anymore). The Vista laptop does go on-line and I
have never had a crash, bug or any problem for 3 years. I quite like
it.
The WIN7 on my workstation does things well enough to say that there
are no 'real' reasons to chose a mac over that. The only reason I
still have macs (6 in all) is that I have a shitload of software tied
up which won't run on a PC. Adobe did make me a deal on CS5 for the PC
that I now have licenses for both.
Win7 has been absolutely flawless, although that box eats power
supplies like it's candy....which reminds me that I never replaced a
single hardware part in a 28 year history with macs and there have
been a lot of different macs come through here. I still have my 128K
mac from 1984. Still boots and then sits there in its wonderful
uselessness saying 'hello'.
On Apr 27, 6:55=A0am, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >Do we have an iPad app for SU yet? SU pro? I have been out of the loop
> >for a few months.
>
> Hey buddy, you haven't been too active here much lately. How's the big
> fight going?
>
> Best wishes.
Completed chemo. Looks like remission, no we need to verify with a
bunch of CTscans, MRI, hose-up-my-arse etc....(I think that is the
technical term.)
So, it's been good.
My social crap gets hung out for those who want on Facebook, so I
don't hang here much.
On Apr 27, 12:08=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> >>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> >>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it t=
o
> >>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy=
is
> >>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
> >>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>
> >> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on=
a
> >> personal printer on ANY software.
>
> >>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
> >>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, =
as
> >>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
> >> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
> >> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
> >> irrefutable truth??
>
> > Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
> > good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
> > we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>
> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>
> --www.eWoodShop.com
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
But, but, but... stating the obvious is what one does when you have
run out of interesting/constructive things to say. The other option is
to bullshit.
Here's one: What colour Bentley should I buy?
On Apr 30, 4:45=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. =A0The
> > education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. =A0They ask for an .edu
> > email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> > email address as well. =A0If you're not using SketchUp commercially it'=
s
> > a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> > don't make her ass look huge. =A0;)
>
>
> The educational version is good for "1" year.
This is true. Think of it as an installment plan while's he mulling
over the purchase.
R
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 4:00 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >Swingman wrote:
>> > >> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>> > >> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> > >>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
>> > >>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>>
>> > >> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>> > >> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>> > >> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>> > > I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>> > > obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>> > > irrefutable truth??
>>
>> > Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
>> > made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie,
>> > only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>>
>> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
>> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
>> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
>> email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
>> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
>> don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>>
>> R
>
>It is seldom the jeans that make her ass look fat... it's usually the
>ass itself that make the jeans look fat.
I saw the cutest bumper sticker on the dock bumper of a truck
yesterday. 'Twas a picture of Obama on the left and on the right:
DOES THIS ASS MAKE
MY TRUCK LOOK BIG?
--
The problem with borrowing money from China is
that thirty minutes later, you feel broke again.
--Steve Bridges as Obama
On Apr 26, 10:02=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 8:50 PM, MJ wrote:
>
>
>
> > Froz,
>
> >> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>
> >>http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=3D042712a
>
> > Well really, does having SketchUp in its product mix, something
> > that can make money for Google?
>
> As has been said elsewhere, it's a good bet that Sketchup's budget was a
> mere rounding error to Google's bottom line.
>
> --www.eWoodShop.com
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Maybe Autodesk's entry into the fray with 123D has something to do
with it. I have used it for a while on my PC platform and it appears
very powerful. Big libraries are being built, not unlike the
SUWarehouse. http://usa.autodesk.com/autodesk-123d/
The learning curve keeps throwing me curve balls so for anything
serious I still do the mac/vectorworks/strata thing which is second
nature to me.
I was just wondering if the huge Autodesk user base has given 123D
some legs, for myself, it scores a great big 'meh'.
Someone who never used a 3D modelling program before and was about to
make a decision in which basket to put their eggs, maybe 123D _is_ a
factor in the big scheme of things. Who know what the world looks like
to the likes of Google and/or Trimble.
The fact that many 3D CAD packages now offer SketchUp plug-in
translators, tells me that SU is going to stay around for while.
Do we have an iPad app for SU yet? SU pro? I have been out of the loop
for a few months.
r
The little bit of 3D I do these days is very basic
On Apr 30, 5:10=A0pm, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> RicodJour <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> =A0>Swingman wrote:
> >> >> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> >> >> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> >> =A0>>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
> >> =A0>>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>
> >> >> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen=
.
> >> >> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so=
, as
> >> >> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
> >> > I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
> >> > obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
> >> > irrefutable truth??
>
> >> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
> >> made. =A0Your remark left out the context of my comment. =A0 No biggie=
,
> >> only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>
> >It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. =A0The
> >education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. =A0They ask for an .edu
> >email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> >email address as well. =A0If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
> >a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> >don't make her ass look huge. =A0;)
>
> Actually, since such a "white lie" would deprive the vendor of
> honest revenue, it's more like telling the clerk at the grocery
> store you've got black pepper in the spice bag, when instead you have
> saffron threads.
>
> In other words, you have advocated theft.
>
> scott
I use my software professionally. I pay for it, but never do I pay for
software which hasn't been tested and tried thoroughly. Plenty of
companies have no problem allowing trial software, and in many cases,
fully featured. What I DO object to, is when I find myself competing
for work with an asshole who has not paid for his software. In one
particular case, that anger resulted into an actual visit to the the
perp's office.
The issue was resolved.
(He had also used MY drawings and designs to prepare a quote.)
"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>
> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version to
> skip, what a POS.
>
I saw a review of Win 8. It made the remark that there were some features
that would help business, but they did not know what they were. All this
effort to make it look like a iphone, nobody seemed to care if any real work
gets done.
I think there should be two versions. One should be a work version for
people who do real work. And a gamers version for those folks who use their
computer to play games and look at movies..
So switch to a Mac and you'll be happy forever. That is, of course,
unless you use an application that only works on Windoze.
John S.
On 04/26/2012 07:05 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>>>
>>>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>>>
>>> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
>>> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
>>> have for free ?
>>
>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>
> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version to
> skip, what a POS.
>
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 4/27/2012 9:53 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> been a lot of different macs come through here. I still have my 128K
>> mac from 1984. Still boots and then sits there in its wonderful
>> uselessness saying 'hello'.
>
> That was, and still is, in itself and at the time, pretty much as
> astounding as anything I've ever seen for home use.
>
I've had Macs die for the simple reason that a battery went dead. Most PCs
don't die, they used to make you reenter the configuration in the BIOS.
(Nowadays they just detect everything.)
I've got a Mac that won't boot even with a new PRAM battery.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:05:02 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>That said, I can't imagine anyone who has ever done any 3D modeling
>seriously thinking they can actually do any worthwhile modeling with
>their finger on a current tablet interface/OS ... not something I would
>consider at this point even if it was remotely possible.
It's still too new a technology, but it will catch up. I'd say give it
two years and it meet your wish list.
On Apr 30, 4:00=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0>Swingman wrote:
> > >> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> > >> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> > =A0>>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
> > =A0>>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>
> > >> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
> > >> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so,=
as
> > >> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
> > > I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
> > > obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
> > > irrefutable truth??
>
> > Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
> > made. =A0Your remark left out the context of my comment. =A0 No biggie,
> > only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>
> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. =A0The
> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. =A0They ask for an .edu
> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> email address as well. =A0If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> don't make her ass look huge. =A0;)
>
> R
It is seldom the jeans that make her ass look fat... it's usually the
ass itself that make the jeans look fat.
I didn't like the upgrade with office either. More look based. The
eliminated the quick keys on many features. That SUCKED.
On 4/26/2012 9:06 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/26/12 8:33 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>>>
>>> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version
>>> to skip, what a POS.
>>>
>> I saw a review of Win 8. It made the remark that there were some
>> features that would help business, but they did not know what they were.
>> All this effort to make it look like a iphone, nobody seemed to care if
>> any real work gets done.
>>
>> I think there should be two versions. One should be a work version for
>> people who do real work. And a gamers version for those folks who use
>> their computer to play games and look at movies..
>>
> It is totally different, all touch based, doesn't seem to translate to a
> mouse well, if I want finger prints all over my screen I would have a
> tablet.
>
On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Swingman wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> >>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
> >>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>
> >> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
> >> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
> >> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
> > I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
> > obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
> > irrefutable truth??
>
> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
> made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie,
> only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
don't make her ass look huge. ;)
R
FrozenNorth wrote:
>
> It is totally different, all touch based, doesn't seem to translate
> to a mouse well, if I want finger prints all over my screen I would
> have a tablet.
Ugh! Personally, I can be the walking definition of lazy when it comes to
using my computer. I don't want to move my hands or fingers any futher than
I have to from the keyboard. It would not make me happy to be forced to
reach up and touch a screen after I've comfortably rested my wrists in
position for Carpool Tunnel Syndrome.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:55:23 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> From what I understand you can choose for Win 8 to look and operate
>like Win 7 if the new look does not suite you.
I'm not sure that will work Leon. Recent releases all offer to run
like a classic version, but they're actually running as the most
recent version in the background.
RicodJour <[email protected]> writes:
>On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Swingman wrote:
>> >> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>> >> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> >>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
>> >>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>>
>> >> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>> >> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>> >> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>> > I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>> > obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>> > irrefutable truth??
>>
>> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
>> made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie,
>> only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>
>It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
>education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
>email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
>email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
>a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
>don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>
Actually, since such a "white lie" would deprive the vendor of
honest revenue, it's more like telling the clerk at the grocery
store you've got black pepper in the spice bag, when instead you have
saffron threads.
In other words, you have advocated theft.
scott
On Apr 27, 1:19=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 4/27/12 1:05 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 12:08 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> =A0 =A0=
wrote:
>
> >>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it=
to
> >>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accura=
cy is
> >>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which ha=
ve
> >>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>
> >>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed =
on a
> >>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>
> >>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen=
.
> >>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so=
, as
> >>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
> >>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
> >>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
> >>>> irrefutable truth??
>
> >>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making reall=
y
> >>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them=
,
> >>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>
> >> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in yo=
ur
> >> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyo=
ne
> >> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
> >> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>
> >> --www.eWoodShop.com
> >> Last update: 4/15/2010
> >> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
>
> > But, but, but... stating the obvious is what one does when you have
> > run out of interesting/constructive things to say. The other option is
> > to bullshit.
> > Here's one: What colour Bentley should I buy?
>
> Beige, I think we should paint the ceiling beige.
>
> --
> Froz...
>
> The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Ceiling? In a Bentley? Surely you jest? Drophead or why bother?
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>
>You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>personal printer on ANY software.
>
>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
>I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>irrefutable truth??
Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
On 4/27/2012 4:21 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> Someone who never used a 3D modelling program before and was about to
> make a decision in which basket to put their eggs, maybe 123D _is_ a
> factor in the big scheme of things. Who know what the world looks like
> to the likes of Google and/or Trimble.
The big advantage to SketchUp for the building industry is ease of
presentation, and dynamic modeling during the construction phase, both
areas of use recently embraced by architects and construction managers.
Just in the past three years every single architect I know, and I know,
and meet, quite a few at building seminars, has taken to using SU as to
the goto tool for client "show and tell" ... the acceptance level has
been amazing.
It is obvious to me that this is what Trimble has their sights on.
> The fact that many 3D CAD packages now offer SketchUp plug-in
> translators, tells me that SU is going to stay around for while.
>
> Do we have an iPad app for SU yet? SU pro? I have been out of the loop
> for a few months.
Only as viewer, and the best of those is "Cubits", which is very slick.
Besides, the viewer concept plays _directly_ to the presentation
strength of SU, as mentioned above.
I no longer take a laptop to client meetings, only take my iPad, running
"Cubits".
That said, I can't imagine anyone who has ever done any 3D modeling
seriously thinking they can actually do any worthwhile modeling with
their finger on a current tablet interface/OS ... not something I would
consider at this point even if it was remotely possible.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>
>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>
>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>
> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
> have for free ?
>
> I have seen this sort of thing before and it never seems
> to make any sense.ex: IBM bought Lotus for $$$$$(billion ?)
> and that has been a dead money loser.
>
> An MBA probably told them they could make it in "support" fees.
>
> The SketchUp crowd might see something similar.
There past few years has seen a large increase of the installed base of
SketchUP Pro users who could arguably benefit greatly from this
acquisition, and since Trimble is right in the middle of supply the area
of benefit, this is indeed a very likely scenario ... at what cost that,
is the major question.
As far as the free version, if SketchUp never develops past its current
capability, users of the free version are still in a win/win situation.
I doubt that the free version will never benefit/be totally excluded
from any future features of the Pro version.
As a Pro user (because I need the presentation ability of that version
in a major way), I am indeed a bit concerned about a future price
increase, but I suppose as long as it is cost effective with regard to a
parallel increase in features, that it will a viable business investment
in software in any event.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/26/2012 8:44 PM, Bill wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>
>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>
>
> I don't like it, but I can certainly understand that Google may
> think it has "other fish to fry", and it would probably like to
> apply it's softare development staff to those other problems with
> which is has real expertise. How much (more) do Google developers know
> about architectural development and the other applications for SU?
> Maybe Google hopes that enough of SU will be free that they can
> keep using it for Google Earth.
>
> Just please don't take my (free) copy away!!! : )
>
> Thank you for the notice FrozeN.
>
> Bill
To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking price
if that is the only way to get it. Sketchup is on of the most valuable
WW tools I have.
On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/26/12 8:33 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>>>
>>> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version
>>> to skip, what a POS.
>>>
>> I saw a review of Win 8. It made the remark that there were some
>> features that would help business, but they did not know what they were.
>> All this effort to make it look like a iphone, nobody seemed to care if
>> any real work gets done.
>>
>> I think there should be two versions. One should be a work version for
>> people who do real work. And a gamers version for those folks who use
>> their computer to play games and look at movies..
>>
> It is totally different, all touch based, doesn't seem to translate to a
> mouse well, if I want finger prints all over my screen I would have a
> tablet.
>
From what I understand you can choose for Win 8 to look and operate
like Win 7 if the new look does not suite you.
So I guess basically when Win 8 comes out and all new computers come
with it you can still choose to not have that strange format.
On 4/26/2012 7:05 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>>>
>>>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>>>
>>> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
>>> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
>>> have for free ?
>>
>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>
> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version to
> skip, what a POS.
>
Just seeing the home screen was enough for mt to not even consider
upgrading.
On 4/30/2012 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> >>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
>> >>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>>
>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>> irrefutable truth??
>>
>> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
>> made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie,
>> only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>
> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>
> R
The educational version is good for "1" year.
On 4/26/2012 8:50 PM, MJ wrote:
>
> Froz,
>
>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>
>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>
>
> Well really, does having SketchUp in its product mix, something
> that can make money for Google?
As has been said elsewhere, it's a good bet that Sketchup's budget was a
mere rounding error to Google's bottom line.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>
>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>
>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>
> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
> have for free ?
Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
personal printer on ANY software.
> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
irrefutable truth??
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/27/2012 9:53 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> been a lot of different macs come through here. I still have my 128K
> mac from 1984. Still boots and then sits there in its wonderful
> uselessness saying 'hello'.
That was, and still is, in itself and at the time, pretty much as
astounding as anything I've ever seen for home use.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/26/2012 6:26 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>>
>>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>>
>>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>>
>> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
>> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
>> have for free ?
>
> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
Some would consider that a blessing in disguise. ;)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/26/12 8:33 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>>>
>>> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version
>>> to skip, what a POS.
>>>
>> I saw a review of Win 8. It made the remark that there were some
>> features that would help business, but they did not know what they were.
>> All this effort to make it look like a iphone, nobody seemed to care if
>> any real work gets done.
>>
>> I think there should be two versions. One should be a work version for
>> people who do real work. And a gamers version for those folks who use
>> their computer to play games and look at movies..
>>
> It is totally different, all touch based, doesn't seem to translate to a
> mouse well, if I want finger prints all over my screen I would have a
> tablet.
That's the whole idea of Metro ... you will be assimilated into the
tablet computer world.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/27/2012 5:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:44:03 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>
>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>> irrefutable truth??
>>>
>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>
>>
>> Been there done that, you have to spend money to make money. It is a
>> concept that is hard to go with and I still have difficulty in feeling
>> comfortable when my money manager sells 1/3 of my funds that have been
>> performing very well for the last 3 years and buy funds that are not
>> performing well at the moment. It goes with the "buy low and sell
>> high" way of thinking which tends to go against what your gut tells you.
>
> Um, what's a "money manager"?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneymanager.asp
On 5/1/2012 8:26 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:30 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2012 4:45 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 4:45 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2012 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
>>>>> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
>>>>> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
>>>>> email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
>>>>> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
>>>>> don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>>
>>>> The educational version is good for "1" year.
>>
>>> This is true. Think of it as an installment plan while's he mulling
>>> over the purchase.
>>
>>
>> You can think of it that way but I doubt the software company would
>> think of it that way. He would certainly have to pay the full price in
>> addition to what he had already spent.
>
> Google explicitly states that there will be no verification of
> the .edu address beyond it being a working one. Google will not come
> after a home woodworker.
>
You totally missed my point. If he uses the $50, 1 year limit of the
pro version, you indicated to think of that as an installment plan while
he thinks it over while mulling over the purchase.
So lets say he decides to not buy the program, he is out the $50 in one
year. That "installment" is not gone. Say he decides to buy the pro
version, he now is out the original $50 plus the cost of the full license.
Best to use the free evaluation of the pro version to decide if he wants
to buy the unlimited pro version.
>> Basically an installment plan is not mentioned as an offer. He pays
>> full price plus the educational price should he decide to go legit.
>
> Maybe Google would appreciate being able to count on his $50/year cash
> flow. Lump sum payments are frequently a cause of overspending and
> getting into financial difficulty down the road. Google might be
> tempted to buy a $3.7 billion dollar company with sketchy (ahem)
> financials because of that extra four hundred bucks burning a hole in
> its pockets. The installment plan would stop Google from throwing its
> money away.
>
> R
On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>
>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>
>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>> irrefutable truth??
>
> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
Been there done that, you have to spend money to make money. It is a
concept that is hard to go with and I still have difficulty in feeling
comfortable when my money manager sells 1/3 of my funds that have been
performing very well for the last 3 years and buy funds that are not
performing well at the moment. It goes with the "buy low and sell
high" way of thinking which tends to go against what your gut tells you.
On 4/27/2012 6:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
> made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie, only,
> if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
Bullshit ... I quoted your words only, and replied to _exactly_ what
you said, nothing more, nothing less.
I did leave Leon's remark out, on purpose as it was not remotely
necessary to "context" because you reiterated the "context" yourself,
repeatedly, without it.
I apologized to Leon ONLY because his name was inadvertently included
and his words were not ... the only reason.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/28/2012 12:18 PM, Bill wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>> the glue dries.)
>>
>
>
> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
Have you tried printing to grid paper and see how that works?
Never had to do it myself, so can't speak to its workability.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Apr 28, 7:06=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 12:15 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> > Swingman wrote:
>
> >> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one o=
f
> >> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
> >> paper can accomodate:
>
> > No, I had no problems with the accuracy of the units (inches). The
> > problem is that a 1:1 drawing wants to print accross 4 pages with the
> > sketch in the middle. By a certain amound of "screwing around"
> > (including, but not limited to, moving my drawing to the origin
> > (0,0,0)), I was able to get better results.
>
> If you reshape the size of your Sketchup window you also cut down on the
> extra pages needed. =A0Just be sure to save you tool locations so that yo=
u
> can restore them after going back to the normal orientation that you use.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/ThinkTanked.jpg
Main floor mini den/office from where I read my news, watch my news,
do the FB thing and do some rough sketching.
This way I am not secluded in the downstairs office, but part of the
family's goings on, something I changed after I ran into this
mortality bit.
Another important bit:
Relaxation whilst working. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/=
Amoment.jpg
And yes, sometimes you need an overview of the bigger picture. Then
flip to monitor # 3. LOL
Also, notice that I remained out of the fray during this thread,
because, shit, man, some things just aren't as important as they used
to be.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Geeze, from listening to you, one might think I had malicious intent.
> It's not so. I strive to write clearly.
Any malicious intent or the impugning of the clarity of your writing is
entirely in your imagination.
What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption that software was
somehow to blame for your template accuracy problems; and an opinion that
you were belaboring the obvious with a less than profound statement about
how spending "....depends on your circumstances".
All fair game for possible remark as soon as you hit the send button ...
just take care that the shit stirrers don't continue to get you too excited
about that possibility.
--
www.ewoodshop.com
On Apr 28, 11:03 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:47 pm, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> > >Another important bit:
> > >Relaxation whilst working.http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Amoment.jpg
>
> > I'd have thought it would be Erdinger.
>
> I like Erdinger on draught, although lately I have been on a Guinness
> kick.
> The Chimay was a suggestion somebody made in here (RonB?). Nice, but a
> bit rich for me, and not just price-wise.
That would have been me. The Chimay's have actually come down in the
US a bit. Now they're only slightly outrageous.
> So back to either Keith's or Grolsch for a daily driver and Erdinger
> or Guinness on draught when out.
I'm having a Dark Truth Stout at the moment.
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/423/56469
Nice command bridge setup. A Captain Kirk chair replica using solid
surface materials and maybe some interior lighting would be a nice
complement. With built in beer dispenser. It's in the details. ;)
R
On Apr 28, 10:47=A0pm, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >Another important bit:
> >Relaxation whilst working.http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robato=
y/Amoment.jpg
>
> I'd have thought it would be Erdinger.
On 4/28/2012 10:40 AM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
> the glue dries.)
I will indeed qualify my contention to a point. There may well be a
program out there that will do it on a home printer without the need for
a device/workaround/kludge, and I would like to see it and give it a try.
I've personally had to use some type of device/workaround/kludge when
printing multi-page scale drawing to a home printer in _every_ software
program I've ever used, both CAD (AutoCAD was one I used, and printed
from, early on), including Sketchup Pro, which is not immune to the
problem itself.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/28/2012 11:37 AM, Larry wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 4/28/2012 10:41 AM, Larry wrote:
>>
>>> You're absolutely wrong but you already have you're mind
>>> made up and I'm not going to change it.
>>
>> Not true ... as soon as you provide solid evidence that the
>> statement:
>
> You're going to tell me simply adding a selectable print
> window wouldn't make things easier? Neither of us care about
> the whitespace of the drawing, only what we've added.
IOW, by leaving my statement completely out of your reply, you can't
disprove it, but you can ignore it and change the subject?
Nice try ... :)
> The simple fact is that MANY people have problems printing to
> scale regardless of whether or not the drawing spans pages and
> a simple Google search will confirm that. You'll never make
> software stupid proof but there is definitely room for
> improvement in the printing functionality of SketchUp.
Was never a point of contention, and I clearly stated that repeatedly.
> I'm done...
And without making a shred of evidence proving what you flatly stated
was "erroneous", of course you are ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
> it to work.
Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem you
are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template paper
not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks, and
other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>> accuracy problems;
>>
>
> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>
> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
Actually it is. You just have to know how to do it. You simply make
the Sketchup window smaller to cut out all the extra white space.
>
> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
> difficult than it should be.
>
> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>
> Larry
And I am using the free version too.
On 4/28/2012 12:15 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
>> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
>> paper can accomodate:
>
>
> No, I had no problems with the accuracy of the units (inches). The
> problem is that a 1:1 drawing wants to print accross 4 pages with the
> sketch in the middle. By a certain amound of "screwing around"
> (including, but not limited to, moving my drawing to the origin
> (0,0,0)), I was able to get better results.
If you reshape the size of your Sketchup window you also cut down on the
extra pages needed. Just be sure to save you tool locations so that you
can restore them after going back to the normal orientation that you use.
On 4/28/2012 12:36 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/28/12 1:18 PM, Bill wrote:
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>> On 4/28/12 11:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>>>>>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>>>>>> accuracy problems;
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated assumption is
>>>> absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in ALL respects ... see below.
>>>>
>>>>> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
>>>>> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
>>>>> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
>>>>> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before going to the
>>>> Pro version, and am well aware of the limitations on scale printing,
>>>> NONE of which have anything to do with the OP's actual statement(s),
>>>> see
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>>> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
>>>>> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
>>>>> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
>>>>> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
>>>>> difficult than it should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>>>>
>>>> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
>>>> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
>>>> paper can accomodate:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> > I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
>>>> > However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as your
>>>> > ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
>>>> > I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>
>>>> ... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the accuracy is only
>>>> as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>> margins", is NOT a "feature" of this particular software that can be
>>>> "improved upon", but is indeed a problem with ANY software when
>>>> attempting to print a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the maximum
>>>> size paper the printer can handle.
>>>>
>>>> This is not an arguable point ...
>>>>
>>>> Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the software
>>>> under discussion, and his statement that "there is room for improvement
>>>> on this feature", is indeed totally "erroneous" ... a point which I
>>>> CLEARLY stated.
>>>>
>>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
>>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>>> the glue dries.)
>>>
>>
>>
>> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
>> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
>>
> http://www.printfreegraphpaper.com/
>
> There you go, try it and see what happens, print a couple sheets of
> graph paper, then feed them back through the printer for SketchUp.
>
> Let us know if it helps.
Yeah ... that would probably also take out any peculiarities/errors in
printing of that particular printer out of the equation.
Excellent suggestion ... would like to know if it works!
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
> that software was somehow to blame for your template
> accuracy problems;
>
Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
difficult than it should be.
Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
Larry
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>>> accuracy problems;
>>>
>>
>> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to
>> be.
>
> Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated
> assumption is absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in
> ALL respects ... see below.
>
>> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many
>> more options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and
>> you'll see many people having problems. A good decription
>> of the problem is located at
>> http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>
> Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before
> going to the Pro version, and am well aware of the
> limitations on scale printing, NONE of which have anything
> to do with the OP's actual statement(s), see below.
>
>> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
>> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around
>> the object you wish to print results in something as
>> simple as a 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>>
>> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far
>> more difficult than it should be.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>
> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was
> clearly one of the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is
> larger than the printer paper can accomodate:
>
> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> > I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
> > However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as
> > your
> > ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
> > I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>
> ... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the
> accuracy is only as good as your ability to glue together 2
> to 4 pages which have margins", is NOT a "feature" of this
> particular software that can be "improved upon", but is
> indeed a problem with ANY software when attempting to print
> a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the maximum size
> paper the printer can handle.
>
> This is not an arguable point ...
>
> Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the
> software under discussion, and his statement that "there is
> room for improvement on this feature", is indeed totally
> "erroneous" ... a point which I CLEARLY stated.
>
You're absolutely wrong but you already have you're mind made
up and I'm not going to change it. I can do in AutoCad in a
couple of minutes what would take hours to get done in the
free version of SketchUp. Printing is much more flexible in a
real CAD program vs. SketchUp.
The original discussion centered around "glueing" pieces
together to have a full scale print. With _precise_ control of
printing this is easy. Add some crosshairs to the drawing to
use for lining things up, print to scale overlapping enough to
use the crosshairs, cut the margins off, glue together and you
have a full scale 1:1 drawing.
When printing a simple 4"x4" square in SketchUp, on my printer
it comes out on paper as 4" x 3 15/16" with no way to
compensate. Ergo, I can't print 1:1. Irrefutable. I can't
select an object to print without it being the only thing in
the visible screen. I don't need to print the screen, I need
to print the object. Just a couple of things with plenty of
room for improvment.
That said, I'm not complaining, it's a valuable tool as is and
we're lucky to have a free version. When trying to visualize
projects it's the first thing I use.
Larry
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 4/28/2012 10:41 AM, Larry wrote:
>
>> You're absolutely wrong but you already have you're mind
>> made up and I'm not going to change it.
>
> Not true ... as soon as you provide solid evidence that the
> statement:
You're going to tell me simply adding a selectable print
window wouldn't make things easier? Neither of us care about
the whitespace of the drawing, only what we've added.
>
> On 4/27/2012 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:
> > You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page
> > templates printed on a personal printer on ANY software.
>
> ... is wrong, I'll swiftly retract any portion that is
> proven wrong. :)
Convince me that being able to compensate for printer scaling
won't help.
>
> I can do in AutoCad in a
>> couple of minutes what would take hours to get done in the
>> free version of SketchUp. Printing is much more flexible
>> in a real CAD program vs. SketchUp.
>
> SketchUP is not technically a CAD program, and does not
> pretend to be. It is instead "3D modeling software" ...
> there is a big difference in the architectural concept
> under the hood, and elsewhere.
Which is the reason I'm not complaining. The only bitch I've
got is they removed the ability to export to a *.dwg from the
free version.
The simple fact is that MANY people have problems printing to
scale regardless of whether or not the drawing spans pages and
a simple Google search will confirm that. You'll never make
software stupid proof but there is definitely room for
improvement in the printing functionality of SketchUp.
I'm done...
Larry
On 4/28/2012 12:40 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 12:18 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>>>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
>>>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>>>> the glue dries.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
>>> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
>>
>> Have you tried printing to grid paper and see how that works?
>
> Adding one's own "grid" to the drawing seems sufficient and workable.
> I'll try it next time.
And add the grid to a hidden "layer", and that layer to a print "scene",
so you won't have to deal with it when using the model for 3D use.
I still like FN's idea of printing a grid from the same printer, then
using that to print to ... be nice to know if that works, might give it
try to see.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Apr 28, 10:47=A0pm, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >Another important bit:
> >Relaxation whilst working.http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robato=
y/Amoment.jpg
>
> I'd have thought it would be Erdinger.
I like Erdinger on draught, although lately I have been on a Guinness
kick.
The Chimay was a suggestion somebody made in here (RonB?). Nice, but a
bit rich for me, and not just price-wise.
So back to either Keith's or Grolsch for a daily driver and Erdinger
or Guinness on draught when out.
On 4/28/2012 10:41 AM, Larry wrote:
> You're absolutely wrong but you already have you're mind made
> up and I'm not going to change it.
Not true ... as soon as you provide solid evidence that the statement:
On 4/27/2012 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:
> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed
> on a personal printer on ANY software.
... is wrong, I'll swiftly retract any portion that is proven wrong. :)
I can do in AutoCad in a
> couple of minutes what would take hours to get done in the
> free version of SketchUp. Printing is much more flexible in a
> real CAD program vs. SketchUp.
SketchUP is not technically a CAD program, and does not pretend to be.
It is instead "3D modeling software" ... there is a big difference in
the architectural concept under the hood, and elsewhere.
> The original discussion centered around "glueing" pieces
> together to have a full scale print. With _precise_ control of
> printing this is easy. Add some crosshairs to the drawing to
> use for lining things up, print to scale overlapping enough to
> use the crosshairs, cut the margins off, glue together and you
> have a full scale 1:1 drawing.
Still, a workaround (adding artifacts that are not germane to the
drawing), just like there are workarounds in SketchUP printing, as
you've noted, and with which I agree.
> When printing a simple 4"x4" square in SketchUp, on my printer
> it comes out on paper as 4" x 3 15/16" with no way to
> compensate. Ergo, I can't print 1:1. Irrefutable. I can't
> select an object to print without it being the only thing in
> the visible screen. I don't need to print the screen, I need
> to print the object. Just a couple of things with plenty of
> room for improvment.
Once again, the "accuracy" problem the OP complained about is inherent
in assembling a drawing with any 1:1 scale drawing that spans multiple
pages, and is one that is irrespective of the software, and unless you
have a printer that does not use margins and will print to the edges, as
his clearly does (use margins), there is nothing you can do to fix it as
a feature, except use a workaround ... a concept that I have no argument
with.
> That said, I'm not complaining, it's a valuable tool as is and
> we're lucky to have a free version. When trying to visualize
> projects it's the first thing I use.
No argument there ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/28/12 11:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>>> accuracy problems;
>>>
>>
>> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
>
> Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated assumption is
> absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in ALL respects ... see below.
>
>> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
>> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
>> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
>> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>
> Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before going to the
> Pro version, and am well aware of the limitations on scale printing,
> NONE of which have anything to do with the OP's actual statement(s), see
> below.
>
>> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
>> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
>> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
>> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>>
>> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
>> difficult than it should be.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>
> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
> paper can accomodate:
>
> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> > I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
> > However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as your
> > ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
> > I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>
> ... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the accuracy is only
> as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
> margins", is NOT a "feature" of this particular software that can be
> "improved upon", but is indeed a problem with ANY software when
> attempting to print a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the maximum
> size paper the printer can handle.
>
> This is not an arguable point ...
>
> Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the software
> under discussion, and his statement that "there is room for improvement
> on this feature", is indeed totally "erroneous" ... a point which I
> CLEARLY stated.
>
I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
the glue dries.)
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Swingman wrote:
> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
> paper can accomodate:
No, I had no problems with the accuracy of the units (inches). The
problem is that a 1:1 drawing wants to print accross 4 pages with the
sketch in the middle. By a certain amound of "screwing around"
(including, but not limited to, moving my drawing to the origin
(0,0,0)), I was able to get better results.
FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/28/12 11:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>>>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>>>> accuracy problems;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
>>
>> Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated assumption is
>> absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in ALL respects ... see below.
>>
>>> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
>>> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
>>> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
>>> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>>
>> Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before going to the
>> Pro version, and am well aware of the limitations on scale printing,
>> NONE of which have anything to do with the OP's actual statement(s), see
>> below.
>>
>>> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
>>> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
>>> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
>>> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>>>
>>> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
>>> difficult than it should be.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>>
>> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
>> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
>> paper can accomodate:
>>
>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>> > I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
>> > However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as your
>> > ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
>> > I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>
>> ... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the accuracy is only
>> as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>> margins", is NOT a "feature" of this particular software that can be
>> "improved upon", but is indeed a problem with ANY software when
>> attempting to print a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the maximum
>> size paper the printer can handle.
>>
>> This is not an arguable point ...
>>
>> Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the software
>> under discussion, and his statement that "there is room for improvement
>> on this feature", is indeed totally "erroneous" ... a point which I
>> CLEARLY stated.
>>
> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
> the glue dries.)
>
The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
On 4/28/12 1:18 PM, Bill wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> On 4/28/12 11:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>>>>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>>>>> accuracy problems;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
>>>
>>> Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated assumption is
>>> absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in ALL respects ... see below.
>>>
>>>> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
>>>> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
>>>> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
>>>> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>>>
>>> Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before going to the
>>> Pro version, and am well aware of the limitations on scale printing,
>>> NONE of which have anything to do with the OP's actual statement(s), see
>>> below.
>>>
>>>> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
>>>> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
>>>> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
>>>> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>>>>
>>>> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
>>>> difficult than it should be.
>>>>
>>>> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>>>
>>> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
>>> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
>>> paper can accomodate:
>>>
>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> > I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
>>> > However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as your
>>> > ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
>>> > I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>
>>> ... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the accuracy is only
>>> as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>> margins", is NOT a "feature" of this particular software that can be
>>> "improved upon", but is indeed a problem with ANY software when
>>> attempting to print a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the maximum
>>> size paper the printer can handle.
>>>
>>> This is not an arguable point ...
>>>
>>> Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the software
>>> under discussion, and his statement that "there is room for improvement
>>> on this feature", is indeed totally "erroneous" ... a point which I
>>> CLEARLY stated.
>>>
>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>> the glue dries.)
>>
>
>
> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
>
http://www.printfreegraphpaper.com/
There you go, try it and see what happens, print a couple sheets of
graph paper, then feed them back through the printer for SketchUp.
Let us know if it helps.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 12:18 PM, Bill wrote:
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>
>
>>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
>>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>>> the glue dries.)
>>>
>>
>>
>> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
>> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
>
> Have you tried printing to grid paper and see how that works?
Adding one's own "grid" to the drawing seems sufficient and workable.
I'll try it next time.
>
> Never had to do it myself, so can't speak to its workability.
>
On 4/28/12 1:43 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 12:36 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>> On 4/28/12 1:18 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/12 11:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>>>>>>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>>>>>>> accuracy problems;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated assumption is
>>>>> absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in ALL respects ... see below.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
>>>>>> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
>>>>>> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
>>>>>> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before going to the
>>>>> Pro version, and am well aware of the limitations on scale printing,
>>>>> NONE of which have anything to do with the OP's actual statement(s),
>>>>> see
>>>>> below.
>>>>>
>>>>>> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
>>>>>> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
>>>>>> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
>>>>>> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
>>>>>> difficult than it should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly
>>>>> one of
>>>>> the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
>>>>> paper can accomodate:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> > I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
>>>>> > However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as your
>>>>> > ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
>>>>> > I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the accuracy is
>>>>> only
>>>>> as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>> margins", is NOT a "feature" of this particular software that can be
>>>>> "improved upon", but is indeed a problem with ANY software when
>>>>> attempting to print a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the
>>>>> maximum
>>>>> size paper the printer can handle.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not an arguable point ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the software
>>>>> under discussion, and his statement that "there is room for
>>>>> improvement
>>>>> on this feature", is indeed totally "erroneous" ... a point which I
>>>>> CLEARLY stated.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>>>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the image to
>>>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>>>> the glue dries.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
>>> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
>>>
>> http://www.printfreegraphpaper.com/
>>
>> There you go, try it and see what happens, print a couple sheets of
>> graph paper, then feed them back through the printer for SketchUp.
>>
>> Let us know if it helps.
>
> Yeah ... that would probably also take out any peculiarities/errors in
> printing of that particular printer out of the equation.
>
> Excellent suggestion ... would like to know if it works!
>
I'm not a SketchUp user, just started the thread because I knew a bunch
of people here used it. I have done similar things before with other
programs when it was going to lead to a paste up of a few sheets.
Helpful hint #1, put a pencil/pen tick at the lead edge of the sheets,
so they go back through the same way, often top and bottom margins on
printers can be different.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 12:40 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2012 12:18 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I agree with you Swing, about the only thing they could do is possibly
>>>>> give the option of printing a light grid or something over the
>>>>> image to
>>>>> assist with the glue-up and registration. (and maybe a few brads while
>>>>> the glue dries.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "light grid" is a nice idea, even if you have to add it yourself!
>>>> That's what is "missing", is something to help assemble the parts.
>>>
>>> Have you tried printing to grid paper and see how that works?
>>
>> Adding one's own "grid" to the drawing seems sufficient and workable.
>> I'll try it next time.
>
> And add the grid to a hidden "layer", and that layer to a print "scene",
> so you won't have to deal with it when using the model for 3D use.
Cool. Add that layer to the SU software, and it will be a "valuable
new feature"!
>
> I still like FN's idea of printing a grid from the same printer, then
> using that to print to ... be nice to know if that works, might give it
> try to see.
The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
it to work. The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
On 4/28/12 3:13 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
>> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
>> it to work.
>
> Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
> might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
>
>
> The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
>
> Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem you
> are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template paper
> not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks, and
> other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
> office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
>
Another possible option, can you export from Sketch-Up to a PDF?
If so, check out the printer dialog box in AcrobatX even the reader
version, under Poster it defaults to a .005" overlap, increase that to
an inch or so.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
>> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
>> it to work.
>
> Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
> might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
I read it. I'd rather try the "gridline approach". I don't expect my
printer picks up sheets with as much precision as SU draws gridlines.
>
>
> The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
>
> Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem you
> are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template paper
> not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks, and
> other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
> office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
>
Robatoy wrote:
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/ThinkTanked.jpg
> Main floor mini den/office from where I read my news, watch my news,
> do the FB thing and do some rough sketching.
> This way I am not secluded in the downstairs office, but part of the
> family's goings on, something I changed after I ran into this
> mortality bit.
> Another important bit:
> Relaxation whilst working. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Amoment.jpg
>
> And yes, sometimes you need an overview of the bigger picture. Then
> flip to monitor # 3. LOL
>
> Also, notice that I remained out of the fray during this thread,
> because, shit, man, some things just aren't as important as they used
> to be.
Oh no! An Apple!!! : )
On 4/28/2012 9:28 AM, Larry wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> What I did remark upon was both an erroneous assumption
>> that software was somehow to blame for your template
>> accuracy problems;
>>
>
> Actually, this is not as erroneous as you make it out to be.
Actually, you're wrong ... the OP's clearly stated assumption is
absolutely and irrefutably "erroneous", in ALL respects ... see below.
> Since you have purchased the "Pro" version you have many more
> options. DAGS for "printing to scale in sketchup" and you'll see
> many people having problems. A good decription of the problem is
> located at http://www.srww.com/blog/?p=117.
Yep, I used the free version for a number of years before going to the
Pro version, and am well aware of the limitations on scale printing,
NONE of which have anything to do with the OP's actual statement(s), see
below.
> SketchUp is not smart enough to print only a specific, or
> selected, object. Not minimizing the white space around the
> object you wish to print results in something as simple as a
> 4"x4" square spanning across multiple pages.
>
> You _can_ correctly print to scale but it's a PITA and far more
> difficult than it should be.
>
> Just my 2 cents from a SketchUp Free user...
Well, had you read the OP's problem correctly, which was clearly one of
the need for printing a 1:1 drawing that is larger than the printer
paper can accomodate:
On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> I recently used it to make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template.
> However, after printing, the accuracy is only as good as your
> ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have margins.
> I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
... you would clearly see, his assumption is that "the accuracy is only
as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
margins", is NOT a "feature" of this particular software that can be
"improved upon", but is indeed a problem with ANY software when
attempting to print a 1:1 scale drawing that is larger than the maximum
size paper the printer can handle.
This is not an arguable point ...
Once again, his assumption that this is a problem with the software
under discussion, and his statement that "there is room for improvement
on this feature", is indeed totally "erroneous" ... a point which I
CLEARLY stated.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:45:49 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>
>> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/ThinkTanked.jpg
>> Main floor mini den/office from where I read my news, watch my news,
>> do the FB thing and do some rough sketching.
>> This way I am not secluded in the downstairs office, but part of the
>> family's goings on, something I changed after I ran into this
>> mortality bit.
>> Another important bit:
>> Relaxation whilst working. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Amoment.jpg
>>
>> And yes, sometimes you need an overview of the bigger picture. Then
>> flip to monitor # 3. LOL
>>
>> Also, notice that I remained out of the fray during this thread,
>> because, shit, man, some things just aren't as important as they used
>> to be.
>
>Oh no! An Apple!!! : )
Well, at least it wasn't a baby's arm holding an apple.
--
You never hear anyone say, 'Yeah, but it's a dry cold.'
-- Charles A. Budreau
RicodJour <[email protected]> writes:
>On Apr 30, 5:10 pm, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Actually, since such a "white lie" would deprive the vendor of
>> honest revenue, it's more like telling the clerk at the grocery
>> store you've got black pepper in the spice bag, when instead you have
>> saffron threads.
>>
>> In other words, you have advocated theft.
>
>It's more of a reclassification. Your average home woodworker using
>one or two "advanced features" once in a while is not the same as
>someone who is running a business off of it. In a rational world all
>licenses would be on a per use basis or sliding scale. It's just too
>cumbersome to do that - for now.
That's your opinion. However, the guiding law for setting a selling
price is that the seller and purchaser must agree on terms. If they
don't (or can't) agree on terms, and one side misrepresents itself
to take advantage a promotion that the seller never intended that the
buyer be eligible for, then the buyer defrauded the seller.
>
>The .edu email address requirement is clearly absurd. How someone
>enrolled in a hairdressing school or studying to be a chiropodist is
>more deserving of a break on the price of a 3D modeling program than a
>garage/basement (guessing) woodworker not using it for profit, I do
>not know. You seem to - please explain.
It's pretty simple - most software that can be used professionally is
often offered to students at a discount for two reasons:
1) Students, usually on a limited budget (more now than ever) can't
afford full price
2) Students, having learned the software in question, will often
pull that software into a subsequent employer, at commercial
rates.
A win for both the student and the company selling the software.
And your strawman argument about hairdressors and chiropodists is
completely bogus, as they're not the target market for the software
in the first place and would have no interest in it (I can just
see hairstyling 3d frame models :-).
scott
(and if you really want free CAD software, take a look at qcad (linux only, tho)).
On 4/27/2012 7:21 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:17:55 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Yeah I can't complain, I went from 98se to XP to 7. IMHO XP was the
>> first Windows program that worked reasonably well. Although 3.1 was not
>> terrible.
>
> I went from 3.1 to NT, to XP and now Windows 7. Don't have one
> complaint yet about Win 7.
>
>> If nothing else boot ans shut down with 7 is extremely fast for me, by
>> comparison. Although my primary boot drivce is solid state.
>
> I've been considering an SD drive. Is the boot up really that much
> faster? How much time to you figure it saves?
Boot up is about 15~20 seconds including the 15 plus "MY" programs that
load at start up. I use Quicken and password protect it, As soon as I
let go of the left click button on "OK" the register is there.
With than I mind I am also running at 3.3 Gightz Have 8 Gig DDR3 RAM
and 1 Gig video and a 1 Tb HD for a majority of my data which is about
10% full.
IMHO the biggest draw back to a solid stated drive is its size, mine is
128 Gb and plenty big but if it were 500 Gig I could store all of my
data on there with room to spare. I absolutely would not consider a
smaller solid stated drive.
On Apr 30, 5:10 pm, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> RicodJour <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
> >education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
> >email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> >email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
> >a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> >don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>
> Actually, since such a "white lie" would deprive the vendor of
> honest revenue, it's more like telling the clerk at the grocery
> store you've got black pepper in the spice bag, when instead you have
> saffron threads.
>
> In other words, you have advocated theft.
It's more of a reclassification. Your average home woodworker using
one or two "advanced features" once in a while is not the same as
someone who is running a business off of it. In a rational world all
licenses would be on a per use basis or sliding scale. It's just too
cumbersome to do that - for now.
The .edu email address requirement is clearly absurd. How someone
enrolled in a hairdressing school or studying to be a chiropodist is
more deserving of a break on the price of a 3D modeling program than a
garage/basement (guessing) woodworker not using it for profit, I do
not know. You seem to - please explain.
R
Froz,
> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>
> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
Well really, does having SketchUp in its product mix, something
that can make money for Google?
This is a pure typical business transaction. Google unloads a bunch of
programmers to someone else, lightens the load on the books,
and goes to do something else. I am sure that Google was
losing money on SketchUp, not because of the freebie version,
but because it had no way of marketing it. Working with
training companies, book publishers, etc. Also trying to
compete against other 3D modelers most likely was
drain. I don't think they want to play in the 3D modeling world.
The excitement is to marry SketchUp to the 3D printers that
are now out and soon to be introduced. Nothing like taking
a 3D image and tell a machine to make you that thing. Now
that would exciting. Trimble might be in a better position to
help to make that work.
I do hope that Trimble keeps a free copy around - but - if
they charge a minimal fee - like $50 for it, I'd consider it
and probably go for it. It's a great tool.
I won't worry too much yet.
MJ
Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:24:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Do you mean like the changes MS has made to their OS over the years
>> in going from version to version? I understand Windows 8 is a real
>> under-whelmer! : )
>
> That depends on how you upgraded if you're a Windows user. I upgrade
> most every second version. Dos, Windows 3.1, NT4, XP and now Windows
> 7. To me anyway, they've all been pretty decent versions. I may have
> just been lucky with my upgrade path, but it's worked out as far as
> I'm concerned.
I suspect that for most Windows users, the upgrade as worked out well, save
a few learning experiences, a few nuances here andn there, etc. But - by
and large, Windows and the common applications associated with it have
pretty much worked. Unless of course, you talk to the Linux guys...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/27/2012 7:17 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 6:55 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:52:18 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> Just seeing the home screen was enough for mt to not even consider
>>> upgrading.
>>
>> Doubt I'll even consider looking at Windows 8. The past decade or so,
>> I've upgraded most every second release and it's worked out very well.
>
> Yeah I can't complain, I went from 98se to XP to 7. IMHO XP was the
> first Windows program that worked reasonably well. Although 3.1 was not
> terrible.
Add another "1" to that and I'll agree with you. Win3.11, "Windows for
Workgroups", was when I finally switched from DOS to Windows ... but it
took me until Win95 to stop using CLI, and then I still dropped out for
admin and network stuff.
> If nothing else boot ans shut down with 7 is extremely fast for me, by
> comparison. Although my primary boot drivce is solid state.
The most solid Window OS I ever ran were WinNT, 4 and up; and, strangely
enough, Vista. I never had the problems with Vista that all the unwashed
masses, fanbois and commentards did, and still have two laptops running
it here at the house with far, far fewer problems than Win7 ... which
still couldn't even make the change to DST without a three day hassle.
MSFT, under the dickhead Ballmer, sucks and has lost whatever innovation
it had ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:24:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Do you mean like the changes MS has made to their OS over the years in
>going from version to version? I understand Windows 8 is a real
>under-whelmer! : )
That depends on how you upgraded if you're a Windows user. I upgrade
most every second version. Dos, Windows 3.1, NT4, XP and now Windows
7. To me anyway, they've all been pretty decent versions. I may have
just been lucky with my upgrade path, but it's worked out as far as
I'm concerned.
On Apr 27, 2:30=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 4/27/12 10:56 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:55 am, Dave<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >>> Do we have an iPad app for SU yet? SU pro? I have been out of the loo=
p
> >>> for a few months.
>
> >> Hey buddy, you haven't been too active here much lately. How's the big
> >> fight going?
>
> >> Best wishes.
>
> > Completed chemo. Looks like remission, no we need to verify with a
> > bunch of CTscans, MRI, hose-up-my-arse etc....(I think that is the
> > technical term.)
> > So, it's been good.
> > My social crap gets hung out for those who want on Facebook, so I
> > don't hang here much.
>
> Hey, I can't find a person with your name on FB, I just looked.
> I know we hooked up on G+, but I find that to be a wasteland.
>
> --
> Froz...
>
> The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Try Rob (dot nonsense garbage ) Sekeris
On 5/1/2012 9:41 AM, Jack wrote:
> less perfect for the needs of 99% of those haunting this rec. I don't
> think I'm going to chance the current upgrade, and now that it has new
> owners, I'm even more skeptical of upgrading for no real reason.
What new upgrade?
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Apr 30, 11:30=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 4:45 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 4:45 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> =A0wrote:
> >> On 4/30/2012 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> >>> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. =A0The
> >>> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. =A0They ask for an .edu
> >>> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> >>> email address as well. =A0If you're not using SketchUp commercially i=
t's
> >>> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> >>> don't make her ass look huge. =A0;)
>
> >> The educational version is good for "1" year.
>
> > This is true. =A0Think of it as an installment plan while's he mulling
> > over the purchase.
>
>
> You can think of it that way but I doubt the software company would
> think of it that way. =A0He would certainly have to pay the full price in
> addition to what he had already spent.
Google explicitly states that there will be no verification of
the .edu address beyond it being a working one. Google will not come
after a home woodworker.
> Basically an installment plan is not mentioned as an offer. =A0He pays
> full price plus the educational price should he decide to go legit.
Maybe Google would appreciate being able to count on his $50/year cash
flow. Lump sum payments are frequently a cause of overspending and
getting into financial difficulty down the road. Google might be
tempted to buy a $3.7 billion dollar company with sketchy (ahem)
financials because of that extra four hundred bucks burning a hole in
its pockets. The installment plan would stop Google from throwing its
money away.
R
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:49:25 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>The most solid Window OS I ever ran were WinNT, 4 and up; and, strangely
>enough, Vista. I never had the problems with Vista that all the unwashed
>masses, fanbois and commentards did, and still have two laptops running
>it here at the house with far, far fewer problems than Win7
Yes, I forgot to include NT4. just before XP. It ran very well
actually with several fixes to help it along. Implicit in that fact
was a game that I particularly like which wouldn't run under any OS
previous to NT.
On 4/27/2012 6:55 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:52:18 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Just seeing the home screen was enough for mt to not even consider
>> upgrading.
>
> Doubt I'll even consider looking at Windows 8. The past decade or so,
> I've upgraded most every second release and it's worked out very well.
Yeah I can't complain, I went from 98se to XP to 7. IMHO XP was the
first Windows program that worked reasonably well. Although 3.1 was not
terrible.
If nothing else boot ans shut down with 7 is extremely fast for me, by
comparison. Although my primary boot drivce is solid state.
On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>
>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>
> Probably weep, but who know$?
>
With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
have for free ?
I have seen this sort of thing before and it never seems
to make any sense.ex: IBM bought Lotus for $$$$$(billion ?)
and that has been a dead money loser.
An MBA probably told them they could make it in "support" fees.
The SketchUp crowd might see something similar.
On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>>
>>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>>
>>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>>
>> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
>> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
>> have for free ?
>
> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>
Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version to
skip, what a POS.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 4/26/12 8:33 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>>
>> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version
>> to skip, what a POS.
>>
> I saw a review of Win 8. It made the remark that there were some
> features that would help business, but they did not know what they were.
> All this effort to make it look like a iphone, nobody seemed to care if
> any real work gets done.
>
> I think there should be two versions. One should be a work version for
> people who do real work. And a gamers version for those folks who use
> their computer to play games and look at movies..
>
It is totally different, all touch based, doesn't seem to translate to a
mouse well, if I want finger prints all over my screen I would have a
tablet.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
FrozenNorth wrote:
> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>
> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
I don't like it, but I can certainly understand that Google may
think it has "other fish to fry", and it would probably like to
apply it's softare development staff to those other problems with
which is has real expertise. How much (more) do Google developers know
about architectural development and the other applications for SU?
Maybe Google hopes that enough of SU will be free that they can
keep using it for Google Earth.
Just please don't take my (free) copy away!!! : )
Thank you for the notice FrozeN.
Bill
On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 8:44 PM, Bill wrote:
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>
>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>
>>
>> I don't like it, but I can certainly understand that Google may
>> think it has "other fish to fry", and it would probably like to
>> apply it's softare development staff to those other problems with
>> which is has real expertise. How much (more) do Google developers know
>> about architectural development and the other applications for SU?
>> Maybe Google hopes that enough of SU will be free that they can
>> keep using it for Google Earth.
>>
>> Just please don't take my (free) copy away!!! : )
>>
>> Thank you for the notice FrozeN.
>>
>> Bill
>
> To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking price
> if that is the only way to get it. Sketchup is on of the most valuable
> WW tools I have.
Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy
is only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
Bill
On 4/27/12 1:05 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 27, 12:08 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>
>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>
>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>> irrefutable truth??
>>
>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>
>> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
>> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
>> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
>> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>>
>> --www.eWoodShop.com
>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
>
> But, but, but... stating the obvious is what one does when you have
> run out of interesting/constructive things to say. The other option is
> to bullshit.
> Here's one: What colour Bentley should I buy?
Beige, I think we should paint the ceiling beige.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 4/27/12 10:56 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:55 am, Dave<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>> Do we have an iPad app for SU yet? SU pro? I have been out of the loop
>>> for a few months.
>>
>> Hey buddy, you haven't been too active here much lately. How's the big
>> fight going?
>>
>> Best wishes.
>
> Completed chemo. Looks like remission, no we need to verify with a
> bunch of CTscans, MRI, hose-up-my-arse etc....(I think that is the
> technical term.)
> So, it's been good.
> My social crap gets hung out for those who want on Facebook, so I
> don't hang here much.
Hey, I can't find a person with your name on FB, I just looked.
I know we hooked up on G+, but I find that to be a wasteland.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 4/27/12 3:06 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:30 pm, FrozenNorth<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 4/27/12 10:56 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 6:55 am, Dave<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>>>> Do we have an iPad app for SU yet? SU pro? I have been out of the loop
>>>>> for a few months.
>>
>>>> Hey buddy, you haven't been too active here much lately. How's the big
>>>> fight going?
>>
>>>> Best wishes.
>>
>>> Completed chemo. Looks like remission, no we need to verify with a
>>> bunch of CTscans, MRI, hose-up-my-arse etc....(I think that is the
>>> technical term.)
>>> So, it's been good.
>>> My social crap gets hung out for those who want on Facebook, so I
>>> don't hang here much.
>>
>> Hey, I can't find a person with your name on FB, I just looked.
>> I know we hooked up on G+, but I find that to be a wasteland.
>>
>> --
>> Froz...
>>
>> The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
>
> Try Rob (dot nonsense garbage ) Sekeris
OK, request sent.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
>Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
>>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>
> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
> irrefutable truth??
>
Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie,
only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 6:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
>> made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie, only,
>> if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>
> Bullshit ... I quoted your words only, and replied to _exactly_ what you
> said, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> I did leave Leon's remark out, on purpose as it was not remotely
> necessary to "context" because you reiterated the "context" yourself,
> repeatedly, without it.
Geeze, from listening to you, one might think I had malicious intent.
It's not so. I strive to write clearly.
>
> I apologized to Leon ONLY because his name was inadvertently included
> and his words were not ... the only reason.
>
On Apr 29, 11:42=A0am, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 7:37 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:17:51 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> Swingman wrote:
> >>> On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the gra=
ph
> >>>> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer f=
or
> >>>> it to work.
>
> >>> Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
> >>> might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
>
> >> I read it. =A0I'd rather try the "gridline approach". I don't expect m=
y
> >> printer picks up sheets with as much precision as SU draws gridlines.
>
> >>> The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
>
> >>> Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem =
you
> >>> are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template pap=
er
> >>> not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks, =
and
> >>> other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
> >>> office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
>
> > Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program athttp://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>
> > "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate printouts
> > comprised of individual sheets printed on ordinary ink jet or laser
> > printers."
>
> Thanks for that link! =A0Matthias Wandel is slightly richer this morning.
Woodgears has saved my bacon on a couple of occasions.
Bill wrote:
>
> I just tried out the EVAL Copy. It's a great example of what you
> can do with 117 KILOBYTES! Ya hear that all ya young-uns that treat
> gigabytes like they grow on trees! : ) The new owner of SU
> might be smart to toss a few shekles towards Matthias Wandel.
> And by the way, yes, I actually have actually carried shekles in my
> wallet in real life. Fortunately for me, many of the locals speak 2
> or 3 languages. Nice trip, if anyone wants to send you.
> 12-hr flight.. :O !
Bill - you been hitting the hoch again?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/28/2012 7:37 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:17:51 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
>>>> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
>>>> it to work.
>>>
>>> Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
>>> might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
>>
>> I read it. I'd rather try the "gridline approach". I don't expect my
>> printer picks up sheets with as much precision as SU draws gridlines.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
>>>
>>> Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem you
>>> are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template paper
>>> not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks, and
>>> other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
>>> office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
>>>
>
> Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>
> "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate printouts
> comprised of individual sheets printed on ordinary ink jet or laser
> printers."
>
Thanks for that link! Matthias Wandel is slightly richer this morning.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>
>> Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at
>> http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>>
>> "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate
>> printouts comprised of individual sheets printed on
>> ordinary ink jet or laser printers."
>>
>
>
> Thanks for that link! Matthias Wandel is slightly richer
> this morning.
>
Please let us know how it works. The "eval copy" prevents me
from evaluating it.
Thanks
Larry
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:17:51 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
>>> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
>>> it to work.
>>
>> Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
>> might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
>
>I read it. I'd rather try the "gridline approach". I don't expect my
>printer picks up sheets with as much precision as SU draws gridlines.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
>>
>> Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem you
>> are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template paper
>> not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks, and
>> other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
>> office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
>>
Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
"BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate printouts
comprised of individual sheets printed on ordinary ink jet or laser
printers."
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb (at) telus.net
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca
Larry wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at
>>> http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>>>
>>> "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate
>>> printouts comprised of individual sheets printed on
>>> ordinary ink jet or laser printers."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that link! Matthias Wandel is slightly richer
>> this morning.
>>
>
> Please let us know how it works. The "eval copy" prevents me
> from evaluating it.
>
> Thanks
> Larry
I just tried out the EVAL Copy. It's a great example of what you
can do with 117 KILOBYTES! Ya hear that all ya young-uns that treat
gigabytes like they grow on trees! : ) The new owner of SU
might be smart to toss a few shekles towards Matthias Wandel.
And by the way, yes, I actually have actually carried shekles in my
wallet in real life. Fortunately for me, many of the locals speak 2 or 3
languages. Nice trip, if anyone wants to send you.
12-hr flight.. :O !
On 4/29/2012 5:17 PM, Bill wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at
>>>> http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>>>>
>>>> "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate
>>>> printouts comprised of individual sheets printed on
>>>> ordinary ink jet or laser printers."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for that link! Matthias Wandel is slightly richer
>>> this morning.
>>>
>>
>> Please let us know how it works. The "eval copy" prevents me
>> from evaluating it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Larry
>
> I just tried out the EVAL Copy. It's a great example of what you
> can do with 117 KILOBYTES! Ya hear that all ya young-uns that treat
> gigabytes like they grow on trees! : ) The new owner of SU
> might be smart to toss a few shekles towards Matthias Wandel.
Boy, do I ever miss the days of tightly coded programs written in C! The
resources required by applications these days is just ridiculous. I remember
programming in the early days of Apple IIs and PCs where we were strapped with
the 16-bit architectures, and writing (mostly) in assembler was the only real
way to get lickety-split performance without taxing the resources of the
machine. When we finally made it to 32-bit architectures I thought we were
home free! Finally we can write code in C and never have to worry again about
running out of addressing space! (The infamous "640K ought to be enough for
anybody" quote comes to mind here). But no sooner did we gain this new-found
freedom than along comes Java and XML and a whole host of other technologies I
don't even care to understand, and before you know it here we are, bumping up
against the 4GB limit of the 32-bit address space, and making the move to
64-bit machines with ridiculous amounts of memory just so we can perform tasks
no more taxing than browsing the web and listening to music at the same time.
Don't get me started. :-)
But back to your original point of how little space it actually takes to
perform a task with a tightly coded program. If you dabble at all in file
transfers using the BitTorrent protocol, might I suggest having a look at
uTorrent (http://www.utorrent.com)? It installs as a single uTorrent.exe file
that takes less 900KB, yet it packs an amazing amount of functionality into a
relatively small amount of space (by today's standards). It's very well
written and well-behaved, and a very rare example of how (I think) programs
OUGHT to be written. Heck, even if you have no interest in using it, it's
worth a look just to install it and bounce around in it for a while to admire
its capabilities before sending it to the bit bucket.
--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> I just tried out the EVAL Copy. It's a great example of what you
>> can do with 117 KILOBYTES! Ya hear that all ya young-uns that treat
>> gigabytes like they grow on trees! : ) The new owner of SU
>> might be smart to toss a few shekels towards Matthias Wandel.
>> And by the way, yes, I actually have actually carried shekels in my
>> wallet in real life. Fortunately for me, many of the locals speak 2
>> or 3 languages. Nice trip, if anyone wants to send you.
>> 12-hr flight.. :O !
>
> Bill - you been hitting the hoch again?
>
Yeah I know, shekels are coins. But they have them in paper currency in
larger denominations. Outstanding Coffee (espresso) too--I'm not sure
whether "chickory" was the difference or something else. Ah, And plenty
of notable architecture too. I was still "awed", but my eyes are
smarter now and I take in details I would have passed over before.
He's a bright guy. Makes nice stuff..
On 4/29/2012 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 7:37 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:17:51 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2012 1:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The disadvantage I see with the graph paper approach is that the graph
>>>>> paper may have to be synchronized with the margins of your printer for
>>>>> it to work.
>>>>
>>>> Therein was the suggested theory that using both on the same printer
>>>> might negate that possibility. You gotta read these things, Bill.
>>>
>>> I read it. I'd rather try the "gridline approach". I don't expect my
>>> printer picks up sheets with as much precision as SU draws gridlines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "hidden grid" layer approach doesn't encounter that issue.
>>>>
>>>> Hard to tell whether that is case until you try both ... the problem
>>>> you
>>>> are still going to face is the thickness/opacity of your template paper
>>>> not allowing you enough opacity to do accurate aligning. Tick marks,
>>>> and
>>>> other workarounds, work great on opaque sheets in the architect's
>>>> office, but not necessarily well on home printers and copy paper.
>>>>
>>
>> Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>>
>> "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate printouts
>> comprised of individual sheets printed on ordinary ink jet or laser
>> printers."
>>
>
>
> Thanks for that link! Matthias Wandel is slightly richer this morning.
On 4/29/2012 11:36 AM, Larry wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Mattias Wandel has a BigPrint program at
>>> http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/
>>>
>>> "BigPrint makes it easy to make multi-page scale-accurate
>>> printouts comprised of individual sheets printed on
>>> ordinary ink jet or laser printers."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that link! Matthias Wandel is slightly richer
>> this morning.
>>
>
> Please let us know how it works. The "eval copy" prevents me
> from evaluating it.
>
> Thanks
> Larry
Seems to work great so far, there is a provision under print settings
that allow you to calibrate the accuracy of the printed out put. I had
to adjust the height output -.05% and that setting seems to "stick", it
has remained 99.95% every time I have run the program.
Very intuitive and easy to make do what you want it to do.
Does not install so you can simply put the single program file where
ever you like.
I like the fact that it will work on photographs too.
Plus you can crop so that you print only what you want to print with out
having to jump through hoops.
You can display and print a grid, horizontal and vertical or a diagonal
grid, and yu set the grid size. IMHO the diagonal grid works well for
aligning the separate sheets of paper.
If you can part with $22 and you only use it one time you are probably
ahead of the game.
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the
>>>> accuracy is
>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>
>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>
>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>> irrefutable truth??
>>
>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>
> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>
Larry, Your first 3 Tall Mocha's (tm) on me. I think someone may be
suffering PTSD over an old Festool thread. I'll buy him and Mike a beer
if they would like--don't think they need more caffeine. Everyone have
a great weekend! : )
RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:48 pm, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> >>>To tell you the truth IMHO Sketchup is well worth the pro asking
>> >>>price if that is the only way to get it.
>>
>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>> irrefutable truth??
>>
>> Swing, I think my comment was a reasonable reply to the assertion Leon
>> made. Your remark left out the context of my comment. No biggie,
>> only, if you're going to be condescending, at least be fair about it.
>
> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
> email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
> don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>
> R
My choice of $50 for a threshold above was more for illustration. My
real threshold is probably slightly higher than $50 but we don't need to
encourage them, do we? : ) Thank you for the info about the academic
version. So far, I'm quite happy with the free version of SU.
Bill
RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:10 pm, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> RicodJour<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
>>> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
>>> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
>>> email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
>>> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
>>> don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>>
>> Actually, since such a "white lie" would deprive the vendor of
>> honest revenue, it's more like telling the clerk at the grocery
>> store you've got black pepper in the spice bag, when instead you have
>> saffron threads.
>>
>> In other words, you have advocated theft.
>
> It's more of a reclassification. Your average home woodworker using
> one or two "advanced features" once in a while is not the same as
> someone who is running a business off of it. In a rational world all
> licenses would be on a per use basis or sliding scale. It's just too
> cumbersome to do that - for now.
>
> The .edu email address requirement is clearly absurd. How someone
> enrolled in a hairdressing school or studying to be a chiropodist is
> more deserving of a break on the price of a 3D modeling program than a
> garage/basement (guessing) woodworker not using it for profit, I do
> not know. You seem to - please explain.
>
> R
Ut-oh, R. I'm not so sure you're going to come of out this unscathed,
and that's with a capital C which stands for chiropodist and for capitalism.
On 4/30/2012 5:47 PM, Bill wrote:
So far, I'm quite happy with the free version of SU.
Same. In fact, I was reluctant to upgrade from version 7 to version 8,
having experienced freeware getting worse with upgrades. Happily,
version 8 seems to work just the same as version 7, which is more or
less perfect for the needs of 99% of those haunting this rec. I don't
think I'm going to chance the current upgrade, and now that it has new
owners, I'm even more skeptical of upgrading for no real reason.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
Jack wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 5:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> So far, I'm quite happy with the free version of SU.
>
> Same. In fact, I was reluctant to upgrade from version 7 to version 8,
> having experienced freeware getting worse with upgrades. Happily,
> version 8 seems to work just the same as version 7, which is more or
> less perfect for the needs of 99% of those haunting this rec.
I don't
> think I'm going to chance the current upgrade, and now that it has new
> owners, I'm even more skeptical of upgrading for no real reason.
>
Good thinking!
I used to think Google could make a few bucks if they charged $.50 per
item to download from the SU Warehouse. And, probably hardly anyone
would mind paying that. And anyone is who does would still be free to
build the item his or herself! : )
Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 10:41:24 -0400, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
>> less perfect for the needs of 99% of those haunting this rec. I don't
>> think I'm going to chance the current upgrade, and now that it has new
>> owners, I'm even more skeptical of upgrading for no real reason.
>
> Maybe so, but I'd expect the new owners (naturally assuming this
> purchase is prompted by a desire for profit), would try to add some
> new capabilities or options to SU to fuel purchases. Those supposed
> changes may even be beneficial.
Do you mean like the changes MS has made to their OS over the years in
going from version to version? I understand Windows 8 is a real
under-whelmer! : )
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:12:48 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 5:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:44:03 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>>> irrefutable truth??
>>>>
>>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>>
>>>
>>> Been there done that, you have to spend money to make money. It is a
>>> concept that is hard to go with and I still have difficulty in feeling
>>> comfortable when my money manager sells 1/3 of my funds that have been
>>> performing very well for the last 3 years and buy funds that are not
>>> performing well at the moment. It goes with the "buy low and sell
>>> high" way of thinking which tends to go against what your gut tells you.
>>
>> Um, what's a "money manager"?
>
>http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneymanager.asp
What, you don't grok "facetious", Leon? ;)
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:08:02 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>
>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>
>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>> irrefutable truth??
Why is Bill's particular amount, $50, so obvious? And if someone else
replies that their limit would be $200, another $100, etc. and if
Trimble _somehow_ follow this thread, they'll have a better view of
what we think and what price to set if they do take away the freebies.
To me, it's all good.
>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>
>If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
>pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
>else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
>further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
Well, there are times and persons here on the Wreck where that "six
year old" description fits the personality perfectly...
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:44:03 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>
>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>
>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>> irrefutable truth??
>>
>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>
>
>Been there done that, you have to spend money to make money. It is a
>concept that is hard to go with and I still have difficulty in feeling
>comfortable when my money manager sells 1/3 of my funds that have been
>performing very well for the last 3 years and buy funds that are not
>performing well at the moment. It goes with the "buy low and sell
>high" way of thinking which tends to go against what your gut tells you.
Um, what's a "money manager"?
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:17:55 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Yeah I can't complain, I went from 98se to XP to 7. IMHO XP was the
>first Windows program that worked reasonably well. Although 3.1 was not
>terrible.
I went from 3.1 to NT, to XP and now Windows 7. Don't have one
complaint yet about Win 7.
>If nothing else boot ans shut down with 7 is extremely fast for me, by
>comparison. Although my primary boot drivce is solid state.
I've been considering an SD drive. Is the boot up really that much
faster? How much time to you figure it saves?
On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>
>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>
>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>
>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>> irrefutable truth??
>
> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:26:50 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:08:02 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>>>>> irrefutable truth??
>>>>
>>>> Why is Bill's particular amount, $50, so obvious? And if someone else
>>>> replies that their limit would be $200, another $100, etc. and if
>>>> Trimble _somehow_ follow this thread, they'll have a better view of
>>>> what we think and what price to set if they do take away the freebies.
>>>> To me, it's all good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>>>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>>>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
>>>>> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
>>>>> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
>>>>> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there are times and persons here on the Wreck where that "six
>>>> year old" description fits the personality perfectly...
>>>
>>> Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just depends
>>> on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
>>
>> How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
>
>Never by me. I just checked all of my sent messages for the word
>"circumstances", and I was unable to locate similar usage. I think it's
>just Friday. Of course, that's stating the obvious, but I don't mean
>the obvious.
<g>
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:08:02 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>
>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>> irrefutable truth??
>
> Why is Bill's particular amount, $50, so obvious? And if someone else
> replies that their limit would be $200, another $100, etc. and if
> Trimble _somehow_ follow this thread, they'll have a better view of
> what we think and what price to set if they do take away the freebies.
> To me, it's all good.
>
>
>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>
>> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
>> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
>> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
>> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>
> Well, there are times and persons here on the Wreck where that "six
> year old" description fits the personality perfectly...
Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just depends
on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
--
www.ewoodshop.com
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 9:45 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just
>>> depends on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
>>
>> How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
>
> Quit playing coy, C_less, you've seen the meaningless utterance
> paraphrased at least a couple of dozen times in every Festool, Harbor
> Fright, and SketchUP thread since day one.
Hey - wait a minute... there's no such thing as a meaningless utterance when
it comes to Harbor Freight conversations...
... or Festool...
...... or SketchUP...
So - just what are you tring to say Karl?
Yes - I am trying to divert this - it's getting way too serious...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 9:45 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just
>>>> depends
>>>> on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
>>>
>>> How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
>>
>> Quit playing coy, C_less, you've seen the meaningless utterance
>> paraphrased at least a couple of dozen times in every Festool, Harbor
>> Fright, and SketchUP thread since day one.
>>
>
> IMHO, I doubt any of us want to invest further in this nonsense.
those of us that don't... don't...
Most of us don't need nannys to guard over us.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/27/2012 9:45 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just depends
>> on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
>
> How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
Quit playing coy, C_less, you've seen the meaningless utterance
paraphrased at least a couple of dozen times in every Festool, Harbor
Fright, and SketchUP thread since day one.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:08:02 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>>>> irrefutable truth??
>>>
>>> Why is Bill's particular amount, $50, so obvious? And if someone else
>>> replies that their limit would be $200, another $100, etc. and if
>>> Trimble _somehow_ follow this thread, they'll have a better view of
>>> what we think and what price to set if they do take away the freebies.
>>> To me, it's all good.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>>>
>>>> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
>>>> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
>>>> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
>>>> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>>>
>>> Well, there are times and persons here on the Wreck where that "six
>>> year old" description fits the personality perfectly...
>>
>> Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just depends
>> on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
>
> How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
Never by me. I just checked all of my sent messages for the word
"circumstances", and I was unable to locate similar usage. I think it's
just Friday. Of course, that's stating the obvious, but I don't mean
the obvious.
>
> --
> If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
> It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
> fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
> -- Margot Fonteyn
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 9:45 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just
>>> depends
>>> on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
>>
>> How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
>
> Quit playing coy, C_less, you've seen the meaningless utterance
> paraphrased at least a couple of dozen times in every Festool, Harbor
> Fright, and SketchUP thread since day one.
>
IMHO, I doubt any of us want to invest further in this nonsense.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:35 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:08:02 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:11:57 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:45 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 7:56 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure it's worth it if you use it a lot. I recently used it to
>>>>>> make a 1-1 scale, 2-D template. However, after printing, the accuracy is
>>>>>> only as good as your ability to glue together 2 to 4 pages which have
>>>>>> margins. I believe there is room for improvement on this feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> You simply can't blame the accuracy of multi page templates printed on a
>>>>> personal printer on ANY software.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still interested in it at $50, at $500 it's not going to happen.
>>>>>> For you, the $500 is tax-deductable and you recover it in sales, so, as
>>>>>> usual, it just depends on one's circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'll never understand why folks feel compelled to state the
>>>>> obvious as if it were some astounding, heretofore unknown and
>>>>> irrefutable truth??
>>
>> Why is Bill's particular amount, $50, so obvious? And if someone else
>> replies that their limit would be $200, another $100, etc. and if
>> Trimble _somehow_ follow this thread, they'll have a better view of
>> what we think and what price to set if they do take away the freebies.
>> To me, it's all good.
>>
>>
>>>> Nor will we po' folks ever understand why people who are making really
>>>> good money never seem to consider their account balances. Unlike them,
>>>> we run OUT of money if it isn't dribbled out in small bits.
>>>
>>> If you're standing in line at Starbucks and don't have the money in your
>>> pocket to buy a tall Mocha, no further reasoning, or repeating to anyone
>>> else, is needed to NOT buy one ... that is so "obvious" as to need no
>>> further telling ... except perhaps to a six year old.
>>
>> Well, there are times and persons here on the Wreck where that "six
>> year old" description fits the personality perfectly...
>
>Yep, especially those whom the phrase ".....so, as usual, it just depends
>on one's circumstances." sails right over their heads.
How many times have you seen that phrase used here?
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:52:18 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/26/2012 7:05 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>> On 4/26/12 7:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2012 3:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2012 1:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably weep, but who know$?
>>>>>
>>>> With the number of free users, what does Trimble hope to
>>>> gain by buying a product that zillions of folks already
>>>> have for free ?
>>>
>>> Well, It may not run on Win8 without an upgrade, a purchased upgrade.
>>>
>> Not sure if you have seen a preview of Win8, this is another version to
>> skip, what a POS.
>>
>
>Just seeing the home screen was enough for mt to not even consider
>upgrading.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/consumer-preview
Oh My Crom! I see what you mean. Win8 isn't in my future, either.
--
If I have learnt anything, it is that life forms no logical patterns.
It is haphazard and full of beauties which I try to catch as they
fly by, for who knows whether any of them will ever return?
-- Margot Fonteyn
On Tue, 01 May 2012 10:41:24 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>less perfect for the needs of 99% of those haunting this rec. I don't
>think I'm going to chance the current upgrade, and now that it has new
>owners, I'm even more skeptical of upgrading for no real reason.
Maybe so, but I'd expect the new owners (naturally assuming this
purchase is prompted by a desire for profit), would try to add some
new capabilities or options to SU to fuel purchases. Those supposed
changes may even be beneficial.
On 4/26/2012 3:26 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> Read and maybe weep, who knows how this will shake out:
>
> http://ww2.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=042712a
http://sketchupdate.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-home-for-sketchup.html
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/30/2012 4:45 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:45 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2012 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>> It's interesting that you picked $50 as your threshold, Bill. The
>>> education version of SketchUp Pro costs $49. They ask for an .edu
>>> email address, but they'll send all the registration info to a second
>>> email address as well. If you're not using SketchUp commercially it's
>>> a white lie - akin to telling a woman that the jeans she's wearing
>>> don't make her ass look huge. ;)
>>
>>
>> The educational version is good for "1" year.
>
> This is true. Think of it as an installment plan while's he mulling
> over the purchase.
>
> R
You can think of it that way but I doubt the software company would
think of it that way. He would certainly have to pay the full price in
addition to what he had already spent.
Basically an installment plan is not mentioned as an offer. He pays
full price plus the educational price should he decide to go legit.