What is Digg?58 Comments
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@geminitojanus
"They were one of the first companies to support Software Activation (DRM)" So you're upset that they've implemented controls to prevent piracy of their intellectual property? You do realize that Adobe expects compensation for its products, just like any other fungible good, don't you.
"They were one of the first companies to implement DRM to defeat image scanning (certain images cannot be processed inside of Photoshop, for example, take out your wallet and try to scan in any bill..." Do you advocate counterfeiting? Sorry, but I have to side with Adobe on this one too.
"Their products are absurdly expensive (IMO, but then again I'm not a professional photographer whose livelihood depends on Photoshop)" So you're upset that Adobe released an industrial program aimed at the business market but didn't price it where a casual consumer could afford it. Did you consider that part of the reason it's so expensive is to make up for losses to piracy? Probably not, seeing as how you're pissed off that Adobe uses DRM prevent piracy.
"their interfaces, while familiar inside of the industry, tend to be frantic and busy, and often require dense training hours." Now you're mad that this professional level program, intended to be used by industry professionals, requires patience and dedication to master.
geminitojanus, you are a child. Pure and simple. Your complaints are petulant and selfish. Adobe does not exist to make you happy. Nor does any other company, unless it happens to be a company you own and manage.
In this day and age, a company would have to be foolish not to have instituted the policies that Adobe has implemented. Adobe has spent years cultivating a loyal following of users and has maintained market position through strategic decisions. It has been careful not to expand into areas that do not suit its users' needs and has pulled out of areas when it was no longer fiscally prudent to remain.
Grow up, child.
p.s. - Stop pirating music. If you want intellectual property, pay for it. We live in a nation of laws. - Zaffel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The only thing comparable to apple fanboys rambling is a Microsoft zomboy crying about it.
Im not sure which one makes me more sick. I use to have fun on digg, but all this negativity is changing my love for this site. too bad, so sad! - brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can still run CS 2 in a decently fast emulation mode.
- ToadX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think Photoshop and ImageReady should be merged into a single application.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6CS2 was released in, what, the middle of 2005? Two years seems like a reasonable interval between upgrades. I hope that Adobe makes the upgrade worth it beyond just the Macintel features. Bridge can use a serious overhaul and a suite-ready implementation of Lightroom would be fantastic.
Photoshop CS2 had quite a few great new tools and features added that, before their inclusion, I never really even knew I needed - smart objects, spot healing, lens correction, smart sharpen and enhanced scripting support to name a few. I hope Photoshop CS3 follows that pattern, rather than being the toolbar shuffle that was Photoshop 7 to Photoshop CS1. - fullcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8wonder if dreamweaver and flash will be in there.
- gdog05, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8geminitojanus,
this isn't an 18 month porting process. These guys aren't Quark. This is an entirely new Creative Suite, that happens to have support for Intel processors for the Mac. I hear you balking about Photoshop, but honestly that's not where the power of the Suite lies. It's all about InDesign. InDesign by itself can virtually replace the basic features of Photoshop and Illustrator if you know what you're doing. That's not to mention the fact that they're tossing in Macromedia features, and compatibility. This is an extremely daunting process, and I think Adobe does a phenomenal job. They do a really good job making the product usable out of the box as well. I believe them to be a pretty fair practicing company. Their products are expensive, no doubt. But they also sell products that can make you a lot of money in a hurry. They also have pretty damn fair upgrade options. Compared to any other software company out there, I think they're the most stand up of the bunch.
If you need help with their software, hit their forums and there will be plenty of help. Chances are, you can even talk to a software engineer. Who else does that? Microsoft? Try finding a solution with an Office problem and you'll be sifting through more mis-information than answers. (IMO- The depth of commercial production software, outside of 3d and video programs, is equivalent to what I do to your mom and what John Holmes can do to your mom)
Before you complain about frantic and busy interfaces, try learning software that requires more than the Bold, Save, and Print commands. If software is above you, don't dog it publicly. You can stick to MS Publisher for your design work like the 100's of 1,000's of other mindless people out there. Don't learn anything for god sakes, it might be hard. - davdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A decent version of lightroom
- xodex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8the world with out photoshop... is a world with out humor =(
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Try Seashore, Gimp-recoded with Cocoa (Mac OS X's native GUI). It's slowly growing, but for me it does everything I need it to (It actually reminds me a lot of MS Paint).
However, I'm sad that it has so many floating windows. Anyway, here's the link:
http://seashore.sourceforge.net/ - nathanchase, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4If they can get Photoshop and the best of Fireworks and ImageReady into one product - that would make all the difference in the world. Is it too much to ask to have both design AND slicing in one application?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9As long as it's bundled with the crack I am happy.
- awa64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yay! It's a bit of a long wait, but I may just be able to get by with picking up a MacBook Pro for college instead of some crappy Dell thing. (Need Adobe Creative Suite for the program I'm going into, and I'd REALLY like to learn OSX and Apple platform rather than be stuck in Windows environments for four more years.)
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hopefully, they can make Dreamweaver on OS X suck less. It has feature parity with the Win32 version as of now, but it seems to be a straight port and the performance is abysmal.
Adobe... please fix Dreamweaver. - nato64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is all the more reason Apple might release a photoshop competitor. Aperture is great for managing and adjusting images. But Apple's customers in the creative development community (i.e. the Mac users that need photoshop to run their business) won't buy Intel Macs. And at the rate that Apple is going with this transition, there'll be no PPC Macs in 6 months. What I'm trying to say is that the people that need photoshop for business won't use Rosetta to run it, they'll wait. Or switch to Windows. Conclusion: reasoning for which Apple needs to release a competitor app to Photoshop.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It could be dangerous for Apple to release an actual photoshop competitor. Adobe products are critical to the Mac platform--Apple should be leary of ticking them off.
- Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I don't get this - they suck because they can't get their stuff out fast enough for you? How old are you?
Yes, I feed trolls. Nobody's perfect. - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hm, by Q2 '07 Apple will have it's own competitor to PhotoShop out, with complete CoreImage speed on the new hardware. Anyone who has seen CoreImage in action with a good GFX card (Macbook pro anyone?) will understand that if Adobe doesn't make use of some similar tech to exploit the GPU it will be left behind sooner or later.
- Daniel591992, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@geminitojanus
Think about this, where would the Web be without Photohsop? - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's pretty cool. I plan to buy a Macbook around that time.
- C00001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I use Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop at work. The tools are expensive because they have a lot of power and take a lot of work to build. But compared to other business expenses, the price of software (even Adobe's) is negligible. And if you compare how much we bring in using their products to how much we spend on them, they're doing quite alright by us.
- spling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This just in: Adobe Creative Suite 3 keygen expected release in Q2 2007!
- emblym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It will run slower than if the same app was ran on a PowerPC machine. It may or may not be noticable to him depending if he is a pro user or not. It runs slower because Photoshop was written for PowerPC architecture, and the Intel Mac has to translate that code on the fly with Rosetta.
Find out more on Google. - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I think it just make sense. Adobe/Macromedia code pro apps that rely on optimized filters for specific hardware platforms. They can release CS2 as Universal Binary, but it will be buggy. They're serious in what they do (although they're becoming a monopoly...).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4They're delaying the release because the kind of PC's you'd need to run their new bloatware won't be available till then. Take an old pentium-3. Photoshop 7 runs quite nicely with almost no lag. I tried the PS-CS2 eval version and it literally killed the machine. A simple sequence of operations such as crop, convert profile, edge sharpen and save took 5x as long on CS2 as it did on PS7.
Adobe software, though stable, is becoming more and more bloated like microsoft. I wouldn't jump into CS3 any time after their release. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"this isn't an 18 month porting process. These guys aren't Quark. This is an entirely new Creative Suite, that happens to have support for Intel processors for the Mac."
No, these guys compete with Quark, and this isn't a completely new Creative Suite; it's an upgrade of an older Creative Suite, with components from another company they've recently acquired (Macromedia). This in no way has any impact on the fact that they couldn't simply update their current code to work with Intel Macs and release it, so that the people who require their applications can get access to them at full speed.
"I hear you balking about Photoshop, but honestly that's not where the power of the Suite lies. It's all about InDesign. InDesign by itself can virtually replace the basic features of Photoshop and Illustrator if you know what you're doing. That's not to mention the fact that they're tossing in Macromedia features, and compatibility."
I hear professional protographers and vector artists everywhere looking at this statement and laughing. Photoshop and Illustrator are extremely feature-dense applications, specifically tuned towards their purposes. Sadly, in all of their applications, their interfaces tend to be a bit of a jumble; while it's organized, everything is deeply menued and they use buttons, checkmarks and radio buttons inappropriately all over the place inside of their application.
"This is an extremely daunting process, and I think Adobe does a phenomenal job. They do a really good job making the product usable out of the box as well. I believe them to be a pretty fair practicing company. Their products are expensive, no doubt. But they also sell products that can make you a lot of money in a hurry. They also have pretty damn fair upgrade options. Compared to any other software company out there, I think they're the most stand up of the bunch."
I'm glad you think so. I don't. We're both entitled to our opinions.
"If you need help with their software, hit their forums and there will be plenty of help. Chances are, you can even talk to a software engineer. Who else does that? Microsoft?"
Apple, Quark, Autodesk/Discreet, most any Open Source project, Macromedia (before they were acquired), and any number of other companies I carry around business cards in my wallet for. Then again, most of the time you actually have to email someone you know and/or pick up a telephone and call them, but most of the time Engineers from any company will answer the phone and work a problem out with you if it's not "Hay guys I can't get mah filter to wark!?". I've personally went through troubleshooting with people at Autodesk (Discreet; Combustion to be specific), and while they're not the world's most hospitable bunch, they will help. I'm not dissing the fact that you can't get help, I'm dissing the fact that you need help to use an application. Then again, professionals will argue that "you should have to have experience and/or a degree in working with a program before you are able to", but I feel as both a computer engineer and as a computer user that applications should teach you how to use them as you use them, they should feel intuitive, and they should be quick to learn. Sadly, Adobe doesn't agree with me (though Macromedia did; see how easy Dreamweaver was to use, and how Flash, even though it wasn't easy, was very quick to pick up with built-in online tutorials).
"Before you complain about frantic and busy interfaces, try learning software that requires more than the Bold, Save, and Print commands. If software is above you, don't dog it publicly. You can stick to MS Publisher for your design work like the 100's of 1,000's of other mindless people out there. Don't learn anything for god sakes, it might be hard."
I write software for a living. My job requires me to think about interfaces and usability. I can dog any product I like if I can warrant it, and believe me, I can warrant it, as any new user to Photoshop can tell you. There really isn't a competitor in the market, so sadly, I can't give you a better example of a usable Raster Graphics application, though I can point out that older, simpler versions of Photoshop had better interfaces and layouts, and that applications like Macromedia's Freehand have better interfaces (though not in the same category, and now Adobe owns that product too).
I know a lot of people like Adobe, and more rely on it. And that's okay with me. I'm saying that every company has its good and bad sides, and personally Adobe has been more bad for me than good. I personally don't have to deal with Photoshop (thank goodness), but my work often brings me to working with professional video applications (I'm a Computer Engineer with specific emphasis in Streaming Digital Signal Processing), and my experiences with Photoshop have been shared inside of Premiere as well (and to those ends, Acrobat Reader, the bane of browsers).
And at the end of the day, their software is still DRM-rich, and overpriced (IMO). All of this, however, is offtopic; Adobe could update their older application with support for Intel Macs, and is refusing to, and is instead strongarming Apple and content producers by making them wait. Whether this is because Adobe is mad at them for Final Cut Pro, or Aperture, or Motion, or Logic, or moving to Intel, it doesn't matter; because they are a monopoly in the field, they don't have to answer to their consumers, and that's the core issue here. Consumers are being strongarmed into buying Windows machines by Adobe because they can't use Apple systems.
It's all okay by me. Sooner or later Microsoft will release their application (Acrylic I think they're calling it), and Apple will have their own Photoshop competitor, and hopefully Adobe will have to pay for their cruel business tactics. Or at least that's my own pipe dream.
Whatever happened to companies doing honest business? - Morky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@EtherGnat
Absolutely correct. If Adobe dropped Photoshop and MS dropped Office on the Mac, Apple has a dead platform. Apple knows this and respects it, although they do dance around the edges (iWork, Aperture). - JesseJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I need this to be creative. Without the newest update I can not be creative.
- Zaffel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree.
- gigabitten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and it will be in universal =)
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And buy CS twice?
- ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2haha, i bet they will make activation even harder to broke now... but that's part of their game. I'm almost sure they will kill GoLive and Fireworks, but this last with some more time...
- fredinator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope they port it to linux
- ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, Flash 8 is the bad one... i can work in Dreamweaver on my Mac with no problems, but Flash 8 is a pain in the you-know-where, it get "locked" when you do a exposé and return to flash, there's no way to select elements or select frames, you can't do anything... you have to click on the title bar to "unlock" the thing. It's sooo annoying. I have also found some other issues but that's another story... Flash is (in my point of view) the worst Mac (Professional) Application...
I hope Adobe can fix those Macromedia's bugs... Macromedia on PC rocks but not on Mac; Adobe, in the other hand, is way better on Macs... So if Adobe will release CS3 including a Macromedia Studio reloaded, i can wait this long... - yuriko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A friend just ordered a new Intel iMac and I'm confused - will Photoshop CS work or just run slower? or not work at all? Likewise for other Adobe software and the likes of After Effects? Can anyone clarify..
- jamesob5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Will Flash 9 and Flash/Photoshop compatiblity be in CS3?
- alexcount, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2geminitojanus: it definatly took more time then 18 months to port OS X, hell they had a pc version running before they even made the move to OS X
- cathode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agee with the general consensus... it's too soon for another upgrade ass-screwing. I *still* have to backsave CS2 files for printers...
- Daniel591992, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1There goes another $500...
- brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The subtitle should read "Adobe Effectively Killed Sales of Acrobat 7 and CS 2 Today."
Seriously though, I'm happy to see that CS 3 is shipping so quickly. Now, we just have to pray for what the suite will include. Photoshop/Illustrator/Flash/Dreamweaver/Acrobat would by the ultimate bundle for me. What do you guys want in CS 3? - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"it definatly took more time then 18 months to port OS X, hell they had a pc version running before they even made the move to OS X"
Beyond the fact that your sentence doesn't make any sense at all, OS X was ported from PPC to x86 in record time (6 months until a product was shipping). Luckily, this was made really easy because when Apple purchased NeXT, Rhapsody (the precursor to OS X) was already written for both platforms, and they simply kept paying people to update the code for both platforms (and even now that they've switched over to Intel, they will probably continue to maintain the PPC version for security purposes for at least a year).
Photoshop, on the other hand, started out as a Mac-only application, and was actually ported/merged into Visual Studio from CodeWarrior when they switched from being a Mac-only company to being a Mac/Windows company. Now, Adobe has to switch from CodeWarrior /again/ to move Photoshop into XCode, which is currently the only toolchain that will build Universal Binaries. This shouldn't take 18-24 months. Applications have been ported entirely from one Operating System to another in less time, Adobe themselves have made the opposite port (Mac->Windows) in less time. Not to mention, Apple has gone out of their way to make this move as gentle as possible. - SeniorElGuapo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Scott Byer from Adobe talks about the reason for the PS delay in his blog:
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/macintosh_and_t.html
*Why did my comment end up here??* - smadore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0doesn't look good for the mac faithful right now . . . what are you going to do if you want to buy a new computer? It won't run photoshop. I guess the used market will heat up.
- Daniel591992, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Amen ^.^
- eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Wow!!! yawn.....
- redsrule2500, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Who gives a crap?
Seriously this Mac Fanboy Site is becoming too much. - foulpudding, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Go MacGimp for intel
I'm ready to move over to open source. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2agreed
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Adobe owns
- SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I doubt that. CS3 will probably be $20,000 per seat and require a telephone call to Adobe enery time you want to use it for a new activation code.
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is