All references are sourced and referenced at the bottom. I am an employee of ACDSee and would like changes to be made to the Wikipedia page so it can be up to date. ![]() This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. on a lighter note, nice to see u Piotrus :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 12:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Reply ![]() Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Reply I have some free time this week, so will chase up some refs and do some digging into the article history. If anyone can find good reviews of old versions, or any reliable sources that discuss why some people prefer the old 2.4/3 versions from late 90s, it would be great to expand this article, but in light of such sources, we cannot add our own opinions. This article in the past used to contain some criticism of the more bloated versions, but I couldn't find any reliable source outside forum discussions/etc. I look forwards to you all adding the "origins" or "history" section and making this a better article :) Chaosdruid ( talk) 23:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Reply ZarlanTheGreen, Becksguy, and Chaosdruid: The odds are good this article has been massaged by ACDSee employees, who want to promote their profitable Pro version. The previous page was very small so it is no wonder that none of the previous versions are lacking. Becksguy ( talk) 05:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Reply VERY much agreed - though it has been this way since 2012. The rest of the current article also reads somewhat like marketing material. I'm going to resurrect that content from the history and reinsert. There used to be a small section in the article which covered ACDSee Classic, ACDSee32, and older versions. 81.143.7.209 ( talk) 12:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Reply Correct, it should not just be about ACDSee Pro. Personally I use 6.03 as the last 'usable' version. ![]() and who find all later versions to be worse, in pretty much every aspect.- ZarlanTheGreen ( talk) 13:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Reply Agree with ZarlanTheGreen To take it further this article is named incorrectly as it is about ACDSee Pro, not ACDSee. I am, personally, especially annoyed by the fact that ACDSee 2.44 or ACDSee 3.1 get no mention, even though there are many who, even now, use them. Why is it that the only versions mentioned are ACDSee pro versions?Īll versions of ACDSee (especially 1 through 7, given that they all pre-date ACDSee Pro 1.0, and thus have no connection to any of the Pro versions) are utterly ignored, with only versions of ACDSee Pro being mentioned. For example, the licensing agreement included with version 2.43 of ACDSee Classic, from section 3.2, says: Distribution of ACD Systems’ software together with pornographic material is prohibited. The older versions referred to bundling ACDSee with pornography, not viewing porn. There are different versions of the EULA. If anyone doubts it, please download the trial version of ACDSee 10 Photo Manager, start the setup and look under clause 2.7 of the EULA. I am putting it back in the article because it is still in the EULA of the current version (10). You simply left out the most important part of that clause, maybe you should learn to read english. Use, display or distribution of this Software together with material that is pornographic, is strictly prohibited.".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |