What is Digg?142 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+139That would be the boobs at Adobe, they probably could have patched their software but instead chose to make users buy new versions for whatever reason.
Did you seriously think Windows would stay were it is forever? In any case harddrive space is cheap and you can dual boot Vista and XP, if I remember right Microsoft plans to support XP for quite awhile yet. Microsoft has incredible legacy support, probably a lot more than they should, because of their business customers. Switch if you want, but beware that if you switch to Apple, they have historically quit supporting legacy hardware and software quicker than Microsoft. - insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -6/+70Wasn't the switch from os9 to osx worse with compatibility?
- LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -14/+69@prh99:
This makes sense. I work at a retail computer store and talk to people running older versions of Windows all the time. Yet when I talk to people who use Macs, they always seem to 'have' to upgrade to the latest and greatest. Very rarely do I talk to a Mac person who doesn't run the latest version of OSX. Apple does have poor support for older versions of their own operating system. And being a closed system where they control both the hardware and software aspects of the machines, you'd think that not only would they support the older versions, but that it could be done with less effort than Microsoft puts out for its older OS's. - erzz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+58I don't get it...... I run Photoshops CS2 and Illustrator JUST FINE under windows Vista. The windows are aero'ed and everything.
- jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45Someone should port Wine to Vista.
- kirakun, on 10/12/2007, -15/+55I'm not sure what the complain with Microsoft is. Didn't Apple do the same thing when they ``upgraded'' over to the Intel chips? Many software also needed ``upgraded'' to universal codes in order to avoid the penality of emulation too.
Tell me that PPC Photoshop runs smoothly under IntelMac??? - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46And the subsequent switch from PowerPC to Intel... Yeah, good thing Mac's stay the same forever or else we might have to upgrade something at some point somewhere in the future.
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+46Who are we kidding, photoshop 7 was the last, truley stable (but still ridiculously bloated) piece of software adobe has created.
For the life of me, I cant understand what adobe is doing in its software to be so bloated and slow. Case in point. I just opened a 4MB PDF in acrobat. It took about 20 seconds to load, and is using ~35MB of ram... Now i open the same file in FoxIt reader... about 5 seconds to load and 8MB of ram. This is pretty much the same in photoshop.
I want to love adobe, I do...but they are just going to *****. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32And just so you don't need to go via his blog, here's the link to the actual support document
http://www.adobe.com/support/products/pdfs/adobe_products_and_windows_vista.pdf - jdowdell, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27This Digg headline is incorrect.
Some existing Adobe tools have already received free updaters to run normally atop the new OS. Some will have larger changes and be in future versions of the tools, but not backports to fix old apps under new OS. Depends on the tool.
This document has provided best guidance, product by product by product:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2007/02/vista_support_f.cfm
jd/adobe - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16See, actually the headline is very correct. Adobe's popular _currently_shipping_products_ including Photoshop and InDesign will NOT get updates needed to run well on Windows Vista. Period. If you bought it recently, and then decided to switch to Vista, Adobe says tough luck, spend more cash. Frankly it's pretty telling that an actual Digg user claiming to be from adobe would attempt to downplay the story.
And now we're supposed to just blindly adopt Adobe Apollo as the foundation for next generation desktop/web apps? Sigh. - thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17No different than telling us Mac users to buy the newest version of Photoshop if we want it to run nice on Intel platforms.
@Lordskywalker
That's not really a valid argument. Vista and XP have their cutoff limits too. And AFAIK, OSX Tiger runs on all of the G4 line and a few late model G3s, that's pretty extensive support. You also need to take into account the demographics of your user base. How many users are actually still using old machines? Is it worth the time to write in support for those? Will the machine even be capable of supporting the new features? etc... - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Adobe did the same thing with the Apple switch. Stop blaming the OS for Adobe's stupidity.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29@kirakun
"Tell me that PPC Photoshop runs smoothly under IntelMac???"
It works just fine. It runs faster than it did on my G4. But I will expect there will be a significant speed bump when it goes universal.
So far I have had very little compatibility issues on my MBP. At least from the major players. There are a handful of small apps that have problems, but nothing major and nothing key. - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@insomniac8400
"Wasn't the switch from os9 to osx worse with compatibility?"
Yes and no. You could run everything in "Classic" mode. But it wasn't fun, and it wasn't without flaws.
It does kinda suck for early Vista adopters, but really over the years there has been so few problems with Win backward compatibility. Had to happen at some point, but could have been worse. - hiney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I use Photoshop in Vista just fine.
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"I don't get it...... I run Photoshops CS2 and Illustrator JUST FINE under windows Vista. The windows are aero'ed and everything."
For the most part you wont notice any difference, but there are a few apps with issues. Dreamweaver crashes a lot when you use the file browser to search for a file. Other apps have significant re-draw issues due to the lack of GDI acceleration. This behaviour is best exemplified when you use certain tools in Photoshop (the blur tool did this IIRC) and the re-draw rate drops to 5 or 6 fps. - TehDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Now I haven't used Windows in a few months, but...
"If you bought it recently, and then decided to switch to Vista, Adobe says tough luck"
I don't know if it's stupid or not, but realizing the amount of apps that work with Vista, as a programmer I can't help but think that Adobe's code must rely on a bunch of ugly hacks and really niche code if it doesn't port that well. Considering the last time I used any Adobe product I could go get a coffee during the startup time, I think I may be on to something here... correct me if I'm wrong.
"And now we're supposed to just blindly adopt Adobe Apollo as the foundation for next generation desktop/web apps? Sigh."
There's something to be said for standardization. It may have an impact on how much money companies make, but the producers should be willing to take that small hit in order to make things easier and more portable for their customers.
Adobe really needs to look inside itself. Their software is pretty bloated and with all the options arranged as they are, or were as of a year or so ago, things were pretty damn unintuitive. - HideoKojima, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Don't worry Adobe, i'll just download my "update" from Demonoid.
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Vista is an Upgrade to XP that broke a lot of thing Going from OS 9 to OS X was an entire new Operating System was made. "
No it isn't. Vista was initially going to be an upgrade from XP, but when they had the code reset they used 2003 as their base. - kdjsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@etc313:
'Well CS2 runs a hell of a lot faster on Vista than it does on my MBP. So, your saying it's time to switch... to windows?'
This would be due to the fact that CS2 is running in the Rosetta (PowerPC) compatibility layer on your MacBook Pro. A fair comparison before you 'switch to Windows' would be to compare the Intel-native CS3 on both the Mac and Windows platforms. But you knew that, didn't you? - Zeush8su, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I'll stick with my open source software...which seems to work well with vista...strange.
- smeager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Look (not and Adobe apologist)... Adobe did the same thing when Apple moved its whole Mac line to Intel Processors. They would not update their existing products to Universal Binaries so if you had to run Photoshop, Indesign et al. you had to run these apps under Rosetta.
It's not that it would be to hard to port the code to the new platform its that the company is so far into the development of its new product (due out in the next couple of months, if I'm not mistaken) that it would cost to much money to start changing code now to make it run flawlessly. Besides they are probably trying to incorporate the newer API that Microsoft is using with Vista. This is the same thing they did with Apple switching Photoshop's code based all to Xcode. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Worthless? I guarantee you, sir, if you're having issues with Photoshop on Vista than it's the computer, solely.
I use photoshop /everyday/ on my Vista box -- Core2 Duo E6600, 2GB memory, 8800GTS, and it runs smooth as it ever did in XP. I literally have absolutely no difference -- it works great.
I use it to import hundreds of raw images off my camera which it does and handles without any hangups, and i also use it for webdesign and graphics and just runs exactly as well as I'd expect an Adobe product to. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How about cutting down on the swearing and taking a chill pill. It's not really necessary "(works)" would have got your point across perfectly fine.
Adding the extra swear word just makes you come across as a bit of an idiot. - etx313, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Well CS2 runs a hell of a lot faster on Vista than it does on my MBP. So, your saying it's time to switch... to windows?
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Pictures speak louder than words.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3978/forshameaa7.jpg - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Adobe saying they can't update is just a bunch of crap, everyone else can do it."
They aren't say they CAN'T, they are saying they WON'T. There is a difference. Why invest a huge amount of money and resource into a product that will be superseded shortly? If they did update existing CS it would most likely delay the release of the new CS3 (which is going to be Vista compatible).
Sorry, but I'm with Adobe on this one. - dosle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Adobe's unwillingness to work with the platform that it owes at least half it's income to is a bit... disturbing.
- Morky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Adobe made the decision not to work on backward compatibility for older products so they could concentrate developer efforts on the feature sets of new versions. And...their updated versions come out like clockwork with a bevy of new features. Their upgrade charges are pretty reasonable, so I really don't understand the complaints. CS3 will be out in time for most early adopters of Vista. Most of the pros that use this software are not ready to trust Vista yet with their daily work, anyway.
- kpeatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This isn't about CS2 not working well with Vista. It's about CS3 not working well with XP.
The article is misleading.
Also - more compelling reasons to upgrade? You really want 'Time Machine' and a new 'Finder' eh? So much that it's worth 150 bucks to you? Your priorities aren't messed up at all! - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8For the record:
Photoshop CS2 runs /flawlessly/ on my Vista box.
This is the first I've heard of issues, and to be frank, I've never seen any problems at all. It installs perfectly, runs perfectly, never slows down or chokes even with massive files or tons of files. I'm not sure what's going on, but again for the record I run Photoshop cs2 flawlessly on Vista. - serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Cause Linux comes with gimp which is free, so Linux users won't bother with photoshop which isn't any better yet costs infinitely more money."
Spoken like someone who has never really done any professional graphic design work.
gimp maybe free, but my time isn't. Translation - gimp is for amateurs.
Don't take my word for it. Call up your printer and ask them if they can take your native layered gimp file and output it to an imagesetter. Once they stop laughing, you might get the idea. - d3designs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Photoshop CS3 Beta Flies on the Macintosh. I'm sure it works just as well on windows too!
- SimonDonkers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm running Macromedia/Adobe Studio 8 just fine on Vista. Dreamweaver works without any issues. Fireworks does disable Areo but after that it runs fine. I haven't actually used flash yet but it also boots up fine.
The apple document on upgrading states that for version before 8: "Adobe does not recommend installing and running earlier versions of Studio, Flash, or Dreamweaver on Windows Vista."
So you can simply run Studio 8 without upgrading on Vista. ("Installs and runs with minimal known issues.")
So software which is 4 years old isn't supported on a new OS a few months old where the latest version is? Somehow I'm not surprised about this at all. - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"What MS did was make a relatively minor, Major upgrade to their OS"
Um...what? Could you explain this part a little better?
But bottom line, this is like Adobe not upgrading Photoshop to a Universal Binary for OS X until they came out with CS3. - digitalarcanum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4flash. anything flash-related in linux is outdated as hell. and if it isn't outdated it's buggy and bloated as hell. I'm not gonna even cite acrobat reader here..
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@erzz
You are correct sir, photoshop cs 2 works perfectly fine under vista
I dont use indesign or dreamweaver but something tells me they work perfectly fine under vista as well.
@gotamd , what and give up advancing an anti-microsoft agenda in the face of silly things such as fact? Never! - MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3CS3 is announced anyway, so all the fanboys won't mind giving out money for that new version, while people who do fine with CS2 and older most probably stick to WinXP as well.
- trparky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I use DreamWeaver on Vista and it runs fine. I don't know what Adobe is talking about, maybe they are talking out of their ass as usual.
- Miche1987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"labtop"
Thanks for making me chuckle a bit. :) - VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And the consumers say NO to Adobe on future purchases of software. Just because you pulled an EA in the multimedia industry doesn't mean you can bark orders at it's users.
Adobe, just admit it; you are stupid at coding. We understand; it's ok. - double2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7^this! genius!
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't know. I've been using Photoshop on my Vista machine for awhile now and haven't noticed any problems. Just like with iTunes.
- Miche1987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What? You mean Photoshop costs money?
- darkstorm777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3lordskywalker:
Not everyone is from the US and speaks fluid English.
Theres this new concept: the "internets" is accessible internationally.
Crazy aint it?! - modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm glad they did this. Mac users had the same thing happen when Adobe said they're SOL until CS3 comes out when it comes to native Intel support. I think the Mac community would be livid if Adobe updated their CS2 line to cater to Vista users. Intel Mac users have waited well over a year for CS3, so Vista users don't have it that bad off.
- anzac87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Adobe releases Robohelp 6 a Week before Vista goes out, and The software Wont Run on Vista or Office 2007, How can you justify a software application releasing a week before a new OS and not include support for the Brand Freakin new VISTA, Get real Adobe!
- lancert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use Vista and all of the products in CS2 along with Dreamweaver, Flash. The only slightly annoying issue I run into is with Dreamweaver's drag to link to a file thingy in the properties area and it's really not that annoying. There are NO show stoppers for me with ANY of the above products.
It would probably cost Adobe MILLIONS of dollars to write patches for a completely new operating system and the current issues seem really minor at best. Non-story.
Lance - jcol79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why does Vista suck ass? I've only heard good things apart from glitches, but that is expected to occur with any new OS.
As far as Adobe. Never been a fan of their business ethics. But then again, what company does have good business ethics? There are those that hide their bad ethics very well.... -
Show 51 - 100 of 138 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 