02-02-2011, 10:50 PM
Agreed. I don't think threatening is the correct course of action here, though I can certainly understand why someone who derives part of their living from the use of software would be angry at a significant loss of functionality.
What I don't know at this point is whether the 64bit version of the software has the same issues as the other versions. If so, then clearly that should be addressed quickly. If not, if could be argued that it gives the outward appearance that the company is trying to move advanced users to the most expensive version of the software by default.
Some clarification from the company via an official statement on the matter would be most welcome. Either that this is a bug that is acknowledged and is being worked on, or that the company intends to support files greater than 3500x3500 pixels in the 64 bit version only, or something else to this effect. As it is, we're simply left wondering what is going on despite the rather welcome efforts and communication by the admin of the forum here.
-P
What I don't know at this point is whether the 64bit version of the software has the same issues as the other versions. If so, then clearly that should be addressed quickly. If not, if could be argued that it gives the outward appearance that the company is trying to move advanced users to the most expensive version of the software by default.
Some clarification from the company via an official statement on the matter would be most welcome. Either that this is a bug that is acknowledged and is being worked on, or that the company intends to support files greater than 3500x3500 pixels in the 64 bit version only, or something else to this effect. As it is, we're simply left wondering what is going on despite the rather welcome efforts and communication by the admin of the forum here.
-P