What is Digg?260 Comments
- juckman, on 05/24/2008, -22/+289Adobe Photoshop CS4: $400, Adobe Creative Suite 4: $2000, Demonoid: Priceless
- MiKe402, on 05/24/2008, -4/+183Can't wait to see this update in MS Paint
- spinaltap87, on 05/24/2008, -17/+188alert me when i can get it off TPB
- Topher06, on 05/24/2008, -5/+101Great, because what is missing in a raster image editor is physics support.
- StealthTomato, on 05/24/2008, -3/+77Wait, someone please tell me what you'd use physics for in Photoshop?
- djm101, on 05/24/2008, -0/+62Shame there's no video yet, would love to see this in action.
- KirbyMeister, on 05/24/2008, -5/+54Shut up, Adobe
- bumcheekcity, on 05/24/2008, -5/+52Linux support is FAR less useful to business users of Photoshop than time-saving devices. A good Image Editor on £30K/year (for argument's sake) is paid £600 a week, or £120 a day (£17/hour, on 7 hours per day). A license of Windows XP costs £80 (OEM Version). So, you'd save £80 by using the Linux version, if it existed (obviously this ignores that you might have other software on your PC that wasnt Linux Compatible or usable in WINE, but let's go with it.
Just by doing the maths, the speed pays for itself in a matter of weeks. I've gone for a cup of tea waiting for a 500MB image to load before. That's 10 mins, or about three quid, and I was working on that image for a week. I must have loaded Photoshop about 10 times, and on top of that, applying filters, and just doing ANYTHING took ages. Loading faster is what clients want, not Linux or 64-bit support, and Adobe are giving people this. Thank God, more companies need to be working on using the phenomenal power of Graphics Cards to speed up applications. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/24/2008, -0/+43Getting caught making professional work with a stolen software license: Expensive.
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -11/+54Getting rid of the Jews.
- joeydoo, on 05/24/2008, -3/+41Well paint.NET beat Photoshop to proper mulitcore support... so maybe they'll have an update before October.
- Chirp08, on 05/24/2008, -1/+38Maybe the text tool won't take 10 minutes to initialize!
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -12/+44How about multi-core support.....
How about 64 bit support......
How about linux support.....
These are things that people have been begging for the past few YEARS !!!!!!!!
Wow....adobe is pretty blind and deaf to what customers really want... - MiKe402, on 05/24/2008, -0/+32Basically, it uses your graphics card to help processing, instead of only the CPU
- Envark, on 05/24/2008, -4/+35Because Demonoid is the unknown underground of piracy.
Yeah, right... - VJ4mes, on 10/15/2008, -3/+33My wallet already hurts.
- n0va, on 05/24/2008, -1/+30Frankly, non-destructive canvas rotation would be enough reason for me to upgrade.
- dn11, on 05/24/2008, -0/+27taking advantage of hardware I already have in my system in order to increase performance is hardly "bloat" - it is exactly the kind of real upgrade Adobe should incorporate into all of it's apps. Maybe you don't get it, but this will increase performance when working with ordinary 2D images.
- solid12345, on 05/24/2008, -3/+29Yeah maybe it hasn't changed enough for you lamers to do your meme images but for professionals the difference over the years is extraordinary.
- sodade, on 05/24/2008, -0/+25Which is why people who use their SW to make money should pay for it. Everyone else should torrent it.
- theblt, on 05/24/2008, -1/+24Let me guess, the only tool you use in Photoshop is the crop tool, right?
- hobbitaussie, on 05/24/2008, -0/+21As a Mac user and developer, the fault really lies with Apple. Photoshop is a Carbon based app and Apple had originally told everyone that Carbon would go 64-bit in Leopard. So Adobe dutifully ported Photoshop to Carbon 64. Until Apple pulled the plugin in mid 2007 on Carbon 64.
So the only way they can go 64-bit is to rewrite it in Cocoa. Not going to happen in this timeframe. - punkcat, on 05/24/2008, -1/+22yeah they almost are going out of business.
adobe is more worried about companies going this route not kids at home. if you are making a living off it its more than likely that you bought the programs.
so really stfu. - blackjack75, on 05/24/2008, -0/+18Well there could be some 'natural' paint tools, which could benefit from physics calculations.
- punkcat, on 05/24/2008, -1/+19uses the processor on your video card in addition to your cpu.
depending on the math involved the GPU on your video card could be a lot faster. - leffunov, on 05/24/2008, -2/+19He's mad that he's still on dial-up
- renegadeafk, on 05/24/2008, -4/+20Vista x64 has been incredibly stable for me, and also very fast. I have never used 64 bit OSX so I can't say it is any faster but saying OSX is the one true stable 64 bit platform is ridiculous.
- blackjack75, on 05/24/2008, -1/+17GPU acceleration is extremely effective to show you instantaneous previews of filters and transforms but they are not a magical solution.
If you look at all the CoreImage apps available on mac, which are by definition GPU-accelerated, you'll see they're all pretty fast when doing previews of effects at display resolution. But they all get unusable if you try to work a 15 megapixels image. - inactive, on 05/24/2008, -2/+17then take it out of your ass, pervert.
- solid12345, on 05/24/2008, -1/+15Honestly i've always thought Adobe cared, but it was their purchase of Macromedia that really elevated the products. It is so much simpler to have Flash, After Effects, Illustrator, and Photoshop all streamlined and able to copy and paste back and forth.
- drgruney, on 05/24/2008, -0/+14I'm thinking it doesn't use "physics" so much as take advantage of the unused cycles that go through the GPU and PPU when it's *not* playing Unreal Tournament.
Anything that uses floating point... like resizing images to bizarre proportions with little distortion. Like growing 117% or something.
Or a super cool new spray paint brush. - theblt, on 05/24/2008, -2/+16Cough, stupid comment..
How is adding performance bloat? And what proof do you have that there is "legacy code" from Photoshop 1.0, or cleaning up that Macromedia code? Have you reverse engineered the Creative Suite software? And then you mention price as if a line of code equates to some monetary value. Adobe can charge whatever the hell they want for a product they developed as long as it's profitable for them.
Your logic is just so *****. - KibibyteBrain, on 05/24/2008, -1/+15Although, this is probably one of the few "improvements" to Photoshop in a very long time that would actually make a new release justifiability sellable at retail at all. CS3 and now CS4 give me hope that some small presence at Adobe now actually cares about their products improving to use new technology at all, considering their monopoly.
- ElCervantes, on 05/24/2008, -1/+15There is something close to video (Adobe webcast):
John Nack speaking at the 2008 Adobe Financial Analysts meeting... (scrub to minute 18 or so for product demo).
Enjoy:
https://admin.connectpro.acrobat.com/_a791863308/p ... - inactive, on 05/24/2008, -5/+19My torrents are always telling me how sore they are...
- ThankTheCheese, on 05/24/2008, -8/+21Let's be honest -- Photoshop hasn't changed enough to justify the upgrade since version 6. This sounds like something I would actually be happy to pay for.
- MasterGrief, on 05/24/2008, -0/+13Get back in your tube, Walt!
- DalamarArgent, on 05/24/2008, -3/+16All things considered, Adobe probably makes more from charging the ridiculous amount for legit copies of CS3 and having college students and convenience users(people who have it at work but want it for home) pirate it, than charging a reasonable value for all consumers.
- davidjunit, on 05/24/2008, -0/+12I don't know either but maybe certain filters could benefit from it.
- HumbleDialog, on 05/24/2008, -11/+23Yeah, but unlike Vista, Photoshop isn't a worthless piece of crap. You get what you pay for.
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -1/+13Version....6
You have never used 7, CS2, or CS3, have you? - farboo, on 05/24/2008, -3/+14Uhh... Photoshop CS3 already has multicore support, just not GPU support. As the summary says. Buried with a cluestick.
- drgmdp, on 05/24/2008, -2/+13your e-penis still looks flaccid
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -3/+14My overclocked 8800 GTS G92 slightly edges out your 8800 GTX. And it cost less than half what you paid for the GTX.
- DalamarArgent, on 05/24/2008, -0/+11Do you honestly think an art school college student already 20-40k in debt from tuitions, living off of ramen, in a 5x7 room and riding the bus has the thousands of dollars needed for legit copies of this software when they are using it for nonprofit and are REQUIRED to be experts on this software before they are able to get a graphic design, art or what ever else they use this for in their professional career.
I personally think it's completely fine for them to charge arm and a leg licence fees for businesses that in-turn use this to make a profit. But to jack kids trying to learn for the furture is a joke, especially with the fact that the version they learn on probably won't even be industry standard when the students are done with their education. What is with the update rate of photoshop anyways...
I am just glad I haven't heard any Adobe witch hunt tactics like I have with the RIAA and MPAA. - inactive, on 05/24/2008, -4/+15Yeah, but that doesn't make up for your 3870s being ***** GPUS.
- Ayavaron, on 05/24/2008, -1/+11Paint.NET has had layers for as long as I've known about it.
- igraham09, on 05/24/2008, -1/+11I completely agree with the fact that you should pay for your software if you are making money, but how would you "get caught" using a stolen license?
I'm not trying to be a dick, I actually want to know lol - Sneakypoof, on 05/24/2008, -1/+11*screams* NERD FIGHT
- SSUK, on 05/24/2008, -3/+13Why not have both?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 263 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is