Photoshop X?

[Synotic]

When will it be out?

[Mac Guru]

According to several notable sources I have been talking to (Adobe Experts with connections) we will have a beta in Dec/Jan... but we'll see...

Untill then we don't know.

Mac Guru

[Code Master]

Hopefully it will be fully optimized for X when it does come out. That is the only reason that I'll accept for it being this late.

[Logan Cale]

If it's not optimized, I will throw stones towards Adobe's headquarters. :)

[Cipher13]

It'd better be soon.

But not only that... it bloody well better outperform the OS9 version.

[Leonis]

Off topic.

I was told that After Effects 5.5 is now in either mid or late beta.

OS X native! :)

[Fran441]

Remember when Photoshop 4.5 was 'carbonized' for use on Rhapsody 5 or 6 years ago? ;)

[KidRed]

Photoshop and DreamWeaver are what's keeping me from X full time.

[erise]

Mac OS Rumors (keep in mind their lack of reliability at times) said January.

[Michaelm8000]

think about how this time next year we will be useing PS X, FCP X, etc! :D

[bradbower]

Dreamweaver is for wussies. WYSIWYGI4W :) Learn HTML/JS/CSS/XHTML/XML/SSI/CGI/ASP/JSP/PHP/SQL. :) Bonus points to anybody who knows all of those acronyms!

[kupan787]

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>Dreamweaver is for wussies. WYSIWYGI4W :) Learn HTML/JS/CSS/XHTML/XML/SSI/CGI/ASP/JSP/PHP/SQL. :) Bonus points to anybody who knows all of those acronyms!</strong><hr></blockquote>

WYSIWYGI4W - What you see is what you get is for wussies
HTML - Hyper text markup language
JS - javascript
CSS - cascading style sheets
XHTML - xtensible hyper text markup language
XML - xtensible markup language
SSI - server side include
CGI - don't know
ASP - don't know
JSP - don't know (guess, java servlet app)
PHP - don't know
SQL - don't know

Damn, when I first went to reply I thought I could get them all. I have heard (or seen) them all used except for ASP and JSP.

Ben

[Amorph]

CGI - Common Gateway Interface
ASP - Active Server Page
JSP - Java Server Page
PHP - PHP: Hypertext Processor
SQL - Standard Query Language

[cinder]

goooh.

I coulda answered all of those.
and I can't write even half of em.

but you forgot AS!

ActionScript!

heh heh


and yes - Photoshop will be the final nail in the OS9 coffin.

Maybe. :p

[bradbower]

*passes out big, warm, soft, gooey chocolate chip cookies to kupan and amorph* Can you guys think of any good ones I forgot?

Mmm... :)

cinder, when you first said AS I thought you were gonna say AppleScript, for which I would have lambasted you. :) ActionScript, is that the Flash scripting mechanism? Or do you mean like Photoshop Actions? (the latter would be germane but probably not what you were referring to :) )

[JLL]

[quote]Originally posted by Michaelm8000:
<strong>think about how this time next year we will be useing PS X, FCP X, etc! :D </strong><hr></blockquote>

But I don't think that we'll see Quark at that time ;)

PS: We're all Juniors again - born again?

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Remember when Photoshop 4.5 was 'carbonized' for use on Rhapsody 5 or 6 years ago? ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>


5 or 6 years ago? No. And it was Photoshop 5.5 ;)

[naderby]

Will it be Photoshop 6.5 or 7?

I think it's taking a little while longer than the likes of InDesign/Illustrator because they want to be really special, like THE reason to upgrade to OSX etc. Also as there is no competition, Photoshop can afford to take it easy, whereas Freehand 10 for X was out ages ago and Adobe want InDesign in the bag before Xpress comes to OSX.

I'll be at the Expo in London in 2 weeks time and will be able to see first hand InDesign/Illustrator being demoed, I wondered if maybe they would have Photoshop X there as well.

[gorgonzola]

PHP is PHP Hypertext Preprocessor, I believe, but I'm just nitpicking ;-)

[D]

[quote]Originally posted by gorgonzola:
<strong>PHP is PHP Hypertext Preprocessor, I believe, but I'm just nitpicking ;-)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm... I heard it was Personal Home Page, as that is why it was originally made.

[FruJu]

[quote]Originally posted by Synotic:
<strong>When will it be out?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Current schedule is April 2002 for golden master. And yes, it will now be called Photoshop 7.0.

[Sinewave]

And it will probably hard it's on Aqua GUI elements and not use the Extras.rsrc just like Illustrator for some things. :rolleyes:

[Amorph]

gorgonzola wrote:

[quote]PHP is PHP Hypertext Preprocessor, I believe, but I'm just nitpicking ;-)<hr></blockquote>

That would make more sense, actually.

PERL, anyone?

[Mandricard]

[quote]Originally posted by cinder:
<strong>

and yes - Photoshop will be the final nail in the OS9 coffin. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, it will be Quark and SCSI support.

[dolphyjazz]

Yeah, where is Adobe??

[Sinewave]

I am sure Adobe was waiting on OS X working at a decent speed ;)

[mania]

You can make the switch now, running ps6 in classic is not such a big deal - its fairly fast. As stated before dreamweaver is for lamers - i call it DreamONweaver because of the pitiful and I Mean PITIFUL code it writes.

here is a made up example of dreamwever code
&lt;font color=#123456&gt;&lt;img src=something&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font size=2&gt;Here&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font size=2&gt;is&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font...&gt;my&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;sucky&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;dreamweaver&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;web page&lt;/font&gt;

:)

[Nebrie]

[quote]Originally posted by mania:
<strong>You can make the switch now, running ps6 in classic is not such a big deal - its fairly fast. As stated before dreamweaver is for lamers - i call it DreamONweaver because of the pitiful and I Mean PITIFUL code it writes.

here is a made up example of dreamwever code
&lt;font color=#123456&gt;&lt;img src=something&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font size=2&gt;Here&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font size=2&gt;is&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font...&gt;my&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;sucky&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;dreamweaver&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;web page&lt;/font&gt;

:) </strong><hr></blockquote>

That looks like it's been created with Microsoft Word. If it happens in dreamweaver, just it the auto-clean code button and all that's gone.

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by mania:
<strong>You can make the switch now, running ps6 in classic is not such a big deal - its fairly fast. </strong><hr></blockquote>

1) Try to allocate more than 436800KB of RAM
---&gt; Crash immediately :mad:

2) Opening and saving file usually 3x slower :mad:

3) Option click outside of the working window will crash the ENTIRE Classic environment

4) Pen tools and creating selection are very jerky

5) Sometime saving file can cause serious data corruption with that file

6) Brush at the size of 100 pixel or bigger usually is slow like hell

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>

[Sinewave]

les not mention what happens when in Photoshop in Classic and someone say messages you on ICQ and you get that icon bouncing going on :rolleyes:

[thentro]

[quote] If it's not optimized, I will throw stones towards Adobe's headquarters.
<hr></blockquote>
Im going over to do that right now wana join me? :D

[Logan Cale]

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>

1) Try to allocate more than 436800KB of RAM
---&gt; Crash immediately :mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't have that much RAM, so that's not a problem for me. ;)

[quote]2) Opening and saving file usually 3x slower :mad: <hr></blockquote>

Yes, it's slower, but not too much on my iBook.

[quote]3) Option click outside of the working window will crash the ENTIRE Classic environment<hr></blockquote>

Doesn't do that for me, I just tried.

[quote]4) Pen tools and creating selection are very jerky<hr></blockquote>

Works exactly the same as in 9 for me.

[quote]5) Sometime saving file can cause serious data corruption with that file<hr></blockquote>

I haven't seen that and I've been using Photoshop in Classic since March.

[quote]<strong>6) Brush at the size of 100 pixel or bigger usually is slow like hell</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but it's like that in OS 9 for me too, so I don't notice any difference. :p

[quote]Originally posted by thentro:
<strong>
Im going over to do that right now wana join me? :D </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I was going to wait until it was released first. You go ahead, I'll catch up later. :)

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: MacAgent ]</p>

[Michaelm8000]

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Remember when Photoshop 4.5 was 'carbonized' for use on Rhapsody 5 or 6 years ago? ;) </strong><hr></blockquote> :confused:

Would that work in OS X.1?? May be a stupid question but will it?

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mikesicons/Menu3.html" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/mikesicons/.Pictures/IllistratorProm.png</a>

[Sinewave]

There was never such a thing.

[nebosuke]

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
[QB]

1) Try to allocate more than 436800KB of RAM
---&gt; Crash immediately :mad: <hr></blockquote>

Holy crap, so that was my problem. Thank you!! I should have asked somebody earlier...

[ZO]

Fran411

In regards to it being carbonized already a few years ago, I used to use that arguement too (when the demo was shown)

But lately I heard that that build was just the very basics. It wasnt actually ported fully. You could only select a few tools (shown in demo) and thats it. 90% of the functionality was not there yet. So basically, they started (maybe) 2-3 years ago and have yet to finsih.

Imagine the demo Jobs gave of 10.1 a few months ago. For example whe showing the menu bar 'docklings' (volume, battery status etc), the battery status indicator was just hard coded to 77% (or whatever it was). It didnt actually work.

anyway I hope they put the same level of attention as the MacBU at MS did when making Office v.X. That really is a VERY nice piece of work. Illustrator 10 also seems to be very good

[4fx]

How are you so sure it will be PS 7? Im not so sure. Think about it, Adobe is most definatly a cross platform company. They are not going to release a new version of Photoshop just for users of OSX. The program must be compelling for both Mac and PC users. Illustrator 10 added support for OSX, but that was a bonus for Mac users - not the reason they upgraded the product. Adobe will not release a whole version number for simple upgrades, as was demonstrated by the 5.0 - 5.5 upgrade. Not a major upgrade, but had a few new features. I can see 6.5 with a few new features along with OSX support, not 7. PS 6 had a slew of new features, it will be difficult for them to improve on such a great product so soon.

[Moogs]

Most likely, we will have the product in late January, and based on what I know it will be version 6.5 Basically, there will be improvements to the features that arrived with version 6 (tweaks to the Brush palette, improved vector capabilities, streamlined layer effects, etc), more so than a lot of brand new features.

Also, the fact that Illustrator 10 has just been released for OS X is a very good sign. Usually it's about a year between releases and this is when Illustrator 9 came out last year. Basically, we can assume Adobe now has the tools they need (in terms of a more mature API and OS) to get their OS X products out the door.

Photoshop 6 came out last December, so a January or February release makes sense, given the app is being written for a new OS.

The only product that at this time, that seems long overdue, is InDesign 2. That application has been in the works much longer than the others if memory serves correctly. Something on the order of 18 months now. It's available for pre-order, but who knows what that means in terms of a final release date.

Anyone know the precedent for that - how many months after a "pre-release" the actual product usually arrives? I never keep track of these things as I don't pay much attention to pre-release hype.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[nebosuke]

[quote]Anyone know the precedent for that - how many months after a "pre-release" the actual product usually arrives? I never keep track of these things as I don't pay much attention to pre-release hype.<hr></blockquote>I don't know what their usual lead time is, but it seemed like Illustrator 10 went from pre-order to shipping in just a couple of weeks.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: nebosuke ]</p>

[FruJu]

[quote]Originally posted by 4fx:
<strong>How are you so sure it will be PS 7? Im not so sure. </strong><hr></blockquote>

They have added enough new features (which has pushed back the release date to April 2002) to justify calling it 7.0 (of course, that also lets them charge more for the upgrade).

By that time it will be almost 18 months since the release of 6.0, which is just about right for Photoshop's whole point release schedule.

Fru

[Moogs]

[quote]Originally posted by FruJu:

They have added enough new features (which has pushed back the release date to April 2002) to justify calling it 7.0 (of course, that also lets them charge more for the upgrade).<hr></blockquote>

Where do you get that idea...that somehow version 7.0 would cost more to upgrade to than 6.5? As far as I know the upgrade price would be the same either way.

Also, seems you know about a bunch of new features and the release date. Care to elaborate?

[Sinewave]

I heard it will be out in Dec/Jan

_________________
Being Politically Correct is retarded.
http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/signazi.png

[AppleProphet]

I actually heard from a reliable "source" that Adobe is going to have a public beta of Photoshop 6.5,7 (I dunno what it will be called) in December.

If that's true, thank god! Just give me Dreamweaver, and a working Unreal Tournament (still can't get it to work) and I'm set in OS X for good.

[Moogs]

Thread to FruJu, come in FruJu...

...tell us about some of those new features that were added that pushed the date back to April. Seems if the product is beta now, April is a bit late for release. Either it's going into Alpha soon and coming out in April...or it's coming out sooner than that. My money is on late January / early February.

Of course, if they have added some last minute features (major interface tweaks and the like), I might be willing to wait an extra month or two for a better product.

[Moogs]

*Bump*

Anyone got definitive knowledge on this one? Friend-of-a-friend-of-a-beta-tester perhaps (nudge, nudge)?

Someone spill the basics (no conjecture) if ya got em:

Version number
Interface Tweaks
Biggest New Feature

I don't expect anyone besides Adobe engineers would have a clue as to the actual intended release date. That's a guess on all our parts, and I'm still guessing January or February. They're sticking to their normal development cycle as best as I can tell (from other products and from speaking with one of their engineers, who's not all that forthcoming for obvious reasons).

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[Leonis]

Even if Adobe releases Photoshop 6.5 with NO new feature but carbonization I would buy the upgrade still.....the latest version that I really paid for was 5.0.

I am using 6.0 currently however...that is the extra licence from the last company I worked :) ;) :D

[Nebrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>Even if Adobe releases Photoshop 6.5 with NO new feature but carbonization I would buy the upgrade still.....the latest version that I really paid for was 5.0.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But still, the sound of the whining and Adobe-bashing and petitions will still be incredible if they do that.

[Moogs]

Leonis, don't give Adobe the wrong idea. There are lots of things - little things even - that can be improved with version 6. Things that I would expect them to do with the next version. Carbonization is not enough to justify the upgrade. Not unless it's going to be a $50 upgrade or something similarly low.

At any rate, given the number of new features on Illustrator 10 and InDesign 2, I think we can safetly assume there will be more than just carbonation stirring about in the next version of Photoshop.

:cool:

[Leonis]

Yeah of course every new version does include new features. I said that just for the "worst" scenerio ;)

BTW. Anyone remembers when Adobe releaese Illustrator 7? Only one new tool and a newer interface and that was it.....

[Moogs]

Anyone know the guy at Railhead Design? He seems to have knowledge of Adobe's beta testing programs (showed some tidbits of GoLIve 6 recently)...if anyone knows him, perhaps you could get him to register here (under an alias) and comment? I dunno. I just can't believe there are no beta testers lurking around here. You'd think it would be easy enough to evade detection using a forum like this...

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by mania:
<strong>You can make the switch now, running ps6 in classic is not such a big deal - its fairly fast. As stated before dreamweaver is for lamers - i call it DreamONweaver because of the pitiful and I Mean PITIFUL code it writes.

here is a made up example of dreamwever code
&lt;font color=#123456&gt;&lt;img src=something&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font size=2&gt;Here&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font size=2&gt;is&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font...&gt;my&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;sucky&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;dreamweaver&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font&gt;web page&lt;/font&gt;

:) </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's what happens when a lamer tries to use DreamWeaver. If you want better code, you don't do each word seperately. You slect your paragraph and select the font size and color you want and end up with just the 2 tags.

Just because you don't know how to use DreamWeaver like some don't know how to code doesn't make DW lame
:rolleyes:

[Jaddie]

Dear Friends

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I can tell you that Adobe didn’t announce an OS X-native version of Photoshop at Seybold. InDesign 2 was announced for “the first calendar quarter of 2002.” Surely you don’t think Adobe is going to surprise us and ship an OS X-native version of Photoshop in that same timeframe.

Bruce Chizen, now CEO of Adobe, announced that all of Adobe’s major titles would be shipping for OS X within six months. Chizen made this announcement on the morning Illustrator 10 began shipping. Mathematically, we’re talking about April. But if we’re six months out now, it’s probably safe to say that it’s really going to be seven to eight months away before we’ll actually have an OS X-native Photoshop.

When Photoshop and Spell Catcher are native, X will be my primary OS.

Sincerely,
Jaddie
<a href="http://www.macjournals.com/" target="_blank">MDJ</a> Reader

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Jaddie ]</p>

[Sinewave]

Jadie OS X has spellcheck built in.

[I think, therefore iBook.]

SQL=StructuredQuery Language

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>Anyone know the guy at Railhead Design? He seems to have knowledge of Adobe's beta testing programs (showed some tidbits of GoLIve 6 recently)...if anyone knows him, perhaps you could get him to register here (under an alias) and comment? I dunno. I just can't believe there are no beta testers lurking around here. You'd think it would be easy enough to evade detection using a forum like this...

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Golive has been circulating around the warez channels for a few weeks now. Don't need any "inside" info from Adobe to get that ;)

[Stephane]

it seems that since OS X.1, Adobe went in a hurry for announcements : Illustrator X, then InDesign 2 are among the 4 major Adobe apps with Photoshop and Premiere.
I read somewhere that InDesign 2 was sheduled for first 2002 quarter then in the Press it is often spoken of january : good news.
Golive 6 and After-effects seem to be in beta-stage according to Railhead design and other news sites (with snapshots).
Except for Illustrator, 3 months ago no one had a clue about those others even if InDesign was probable because of its "major revision upgrade" big need.

So i think Photoshop could well be ready in the next 4 months with a beta stage in the beginning of 2002

It seems that Adobe was in fact waiting for X.1

I hope that Macromedia will have its products ready for MW New York and even sooner !

[Moogs]

On a tangent, if you read through the Illustrator 10 manual, it specifically mentions capabilities related to "GoLive 6.0" in three or four places...so my inclination is to say it should be along before Christmas. No other apps (such as InDesign 2.0 or Photoshop 7.0) were mentioned, unfortunately. Although they do mention certain new capabilities as related to those apps...perhaps there are some hints hiding among them.

[quote]

So i think Photoshop could well be ready in the next 4 months with a beta stage in the beginning of 2002.<hr></blockquote>

It's already in beta testing...but Adobe has long beta cycles (which is a good thing usually) so it remains to be seen. The good news is, by May 1 I bet we'll have them all (even Premiere and After Effects).

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[New]

Big Bad ASP (Active Server Pages)
JHTML anyone? (AGP)


I believe Illustrator 10 was released so fast because of freehand 10... Thightly integrated with Flash this is Macromedias biggest competitor to adobe, except maybe golive to dreamweaver...

BTW, I use golive as HTML editor with the textwindow as default... The code looks exactly like I want it to, and I can easily check the layout or select the right cells in a table. I've tried to convert to dreamweaver and BBE but I guess i'm just stuck with this piece of software... (been using it since it was called cyberstudio...)

[The Toolboi]

How bout COBOL?
Completley Obsolete Boring Old Language?

[cinder]

[quote] That's what happens when a lamer tries to use DreamWeaver. If you want better code, you don't do each word seperately. You slect your paragraph and select the font size and color you want and end up with just the 2 tags.<hr></blockquote>


You know what's sillier than using a million font tags in DW?
Using font tags at all. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

It's just slightly easier to write one Stylesheet and then link it to every page.

DW does NOT write good clean code, it's very easy to add additional worthless code on top of bad code, and it's hardly WYSIWYG.

Ever looked at the Javascript it writes?
*shudder*

I won't even mention the exclusion of DOCTYPES barring the add-on you can download by choice.

[foocha]

I don't think that there was ever a demonstration of Photoshop 4.5 on Rhapsody. I think the keynote you are referring to is the one where Steve Jobs launched the OS X concept - where a port of Photoshop was shown running on an early version of X.

Remember Adobe had never supported Rhapsody - it would have required the rewriting Photoshop entirely in Cocoa (Yellow Box). None of the major developers were willing to do a Cocoa (Yellow Box) port, which is why OS X was introduced with the Carbon framework. Carbon allows developers to re-use a lot of the old OS9 code because it has most of the old APIs.

In the demo of Photoshop on OS X - which as I recall Jobs claimed took Adobe only two weeks to port - OS X was a very different animal. It had the platinum user interface rather than Aqua for starters. I suspect that there were more OS 9 APIs still available at that point - and yes I'm sure it only had a limited feature set. There's no way it would work on today's OS X.

[foocha]

Found it - Photoshop on OS X was first demonstrated at the WWDC in '98 - here's the feature on apple.com:

<a href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/wwdcjobs.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/wwdcjobs.html</a>

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: foocha ]</p>

[Moogs]

1998...all you need to know to understand it was a completely different beast from the OS X released earlier this year / in use now. Honestly, the demo they did should not have any bearing on how people treat Adobe for the current version being built.

If we never had OS X at all, and were simply waiting for the next version of Photoshop, we *still* wouldn't have it until December or January most likely. Rarely is the product updated more frequently than once every 12 or 13 months. We're still not at the 12 month mark yet (though we're close)...So if they release in February or there-bouts, that's good with me.

If we're still waiting come late spring or summer, feel free to get beligerent. :D

[Zeno]

I've installed Adobe Photoshop 7.0 (beta 43) and ImageReady 7.0 (beta 43) for Mac OS X.
Phothoshop "flies" on my G4/400! really!
It's simply GREAT!
ImageReady still needs some work: for example the layers palette appears in a Classic(OS9)-gray appearance instead of an Aqua appearance. On the contrary, in Photoshop, EVERYTHING has been beautifully "aquafied". I would like to post some screenshots, but to add an image here (in this board) I have to put it on a http webserver, and for "anonymity" that's not good

(I was forgetting......for those ones who will say that what I'm writing is only bullsh*t..... no problem for me...think what you want :) )

[Escher]

[quote]Originally posted by Zeno:
<strong>II would like to post some screenshots, but to add an image here (in this board) I have to put it on a http webserver, and for "anonymity" that's not good</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, <a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/" target="_blank">Think Secret</a> is not quite as wussy and has posted a great series of <a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/photoshop7/" target="_blank">Photoshop 7 screenshots</a>.

Escher

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Escher ]</p>

[Moogs]

Thanks for the info guys. Either TS's server is messed up, or they've already removed all the pictures at the request of Adobe legal. I'm getting URL errors for each one....

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[edit]

Upon further review, the few screenshots that do load look like total hack jobs. The Splash Screen is a JOKE. Adobe would never use anything like that - even on a beta product. I don't really follow the rumor sites much...is TS pretty reliable based on past screenshots and such? And it's already in beta, so the "will go beta in the coming months" comment also reduces their believability factor....

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[4fx]

Just a little friendly reminder to say that when speculating on the next Photoshop remember that Adobe is most definately a cross platform company. They will by no means release an upgrade that is not warranted just for us Mac users that want to move to OSX. They have to make a number of improvements to the program to make it a viable upgrade for Windoze users as well. Im just not so happy about having to dish out even more money for somthing I just bought... Oh well, let the OSX apps role! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[King Chung Huang]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>Upon further review, the few screenshots that do load look like total hack jobs. The Splash Screen is a JOKE. Adobe would never use anything like that - even on a beta product. I don't really follow the rumor sites much...is TS pretty reliable based on past screenshots and such? And it's already in beta, so the "will go beta in the coming months" comment also reduces their believability factor....</strong><hr></blockquote>

All the screenshots loaded for me without any problems. I don't see why you think the splash screen is a "joke"? They've done outrageous splash screen before in the beta builds of older Photoshops. Overall, I'm really looking forward to having Photoshop for OS X. Then, I'll finally be able to start using OS X for most of my work. :)

[Moogs]

I don't know...just looked really amatuerish to me...and the File browser thing looked like a total hack also. You can almost see where they took bits and pieces of other screen shots and molded it into the one you see....

Hope I'm wrong. Like I say I don't know much about Think Secret , but it just doesn't look convincing to me at this point. If the guy who commented earlier cares to elaborate more on the beta or find a way to anonymously post his screen shots (there are sites that you can do that from with mimal registration info / false info I'm sure)....that might help.

[Zeno]

[quote]If the guy who commented earlier cares to elaborate more on the beta....that might help.<hr></blockquote>

Ok, here we go: <a href="http://zeno.web1000.com" target="_blank">PS7 screenshots</a>

Moogs: there's also a special "dedication" for you....

[Michaelm8000]

[quote]Originally posted by Zeno:
<strong>

Ok, here we go: <a href="http://zeno.web1000.com" target="_blank">PS7 screenshots</a>

Moogs: there's also a special "dedication" for you....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well those are pretty convincing. But I Am a little confused :confused: . If you look at screen shot <a href="http://www.macosx.org/images/photoshopx.jpg" target="_blank">this</a>. And then look at <a href="http://zeno.web1000.com/main.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> one. they do not match up. Ether one is fake or one is a earlyer biuld. I think <a href="http://www.macosx.org/images/photoshopx.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> one is a latter biuld by the looks of things. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mikesicons/Menu3.html" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/mikesicons/.Pictures/GiftPromo.png</a>

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Michaelm8000 ]</p>

[Escher]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>And it's already in beta, so the "will go beta in the coming months" comment also reduces their believability factor....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moogs: I think they meant to say that PS 7 will enter public beta at some point. There's been rumors of that for a while.

I'm not usually into stealing software on the Net, but tried out Carracho when I was sick of waiting for MS to ship my copy of Office v.X. (For the record, I now own a fully registered copy of Office X.) In any case, I launched up Carracho, just to see what the fish of the day was. At least a dozen servers were offering Photoshop 7 for OS X beta 43 (I think that's what it was) for download. Based upon that, I have no reason to question Think Secret's report.

Note: Think Secret's server was experiencing very high traffic today. Server overload lead to some odd (non-) responses.

In any case, my photo editing needs are currently met by <a href="http://www.graphicconverter.net/" target="_blank">GraphicConverter</a> anyway. I'm looking forward to Adobe GoLive for X though, since I'm hoping to supplement BBEdit with a WYSIWYG web editor soon.

Escher

[Moogs]

Zeno, I sit corrected (nice main screenshot btw). From the looks of it, Adobe has done a nice job with the interface. Thanks for posting that! Two questions for you: any changes to either the Brush Well , and is either the Brush palette or Options palette (as we used to know them) present? I'm guessing not, but even so it looks pretty cool.

What can you tell us about the real-time warping stuff? Did they finally add a grid-warping feature to PS?? That would be sweet. I notice a few of the text palette widgets too. Pretty cool.

[Kurt S. Banning]

Damn final exams are keeping me from really boring into it, but the anti-aliasing is nice and flexible - you can even choose the type of anti-aliasing it will do, menus in some areas like the "File Browser" are kind of awkward for me. Feels rather Macromedia like actually [the file browser not the program].

As far as speed goes its not snappy at most stuff, not like PS 6 and not like 10.1, but hey, its at Beta 43 right?

I am hoping for a first quarter release, say January or Febuary, mainly because I want to see it released at a MacWorld convention and I want to see 7.0 come out for Mac OS X before it does for Windows XP - no word on the Windows version as of yet.

Regardless, I don't know anything about any public beta, personally I hope they don't do that, I think commercial companies use it as a way to buy time for the most part. Apple basically had to due to all of us complaining and shouting, and the yeasr of delays, but as a general rule its a bad move.

The top command gives me the following info while PS 7 b43 is running in the background:

706 Adobe Phot 1.2% 0:19.74 2 73 443 16.3M 22.5M 33.4M 110M

There is a readme file but its just a blank placeholder that says PS7 readme will go here. Which sucks because I wanted to know requirement specs. No matter what, this is a late build and seems full featured, the Help menu gives the option to show system info:

Operating System: Mac OS 10.1.1
System architecture: PowerPC G3
Processor speed: 400 MHz
Built-in memory: 320 MB
Image cache levels: 4
Use image cache for histograms: No
Serial number: Sorry guys, not showing that one.
Application folder: Macintosh HD:Applications:Adobe Photoshop 7.0:
Photoshop scratch has async I/O enabled
Scratch volume(s):
Startup, 9.36 GB, 2.75 GB free
Primary Plug-ins folder: Macintosh HD:Applications:Adobe Photoshop 7.0 :p lug-Ins:
Additional Plug-ins folder: not set
Installed plug-ins:
3D Transform 7.0.0
ADM 2.8.4
ASDataStreams Suite 1.0.2
Accented Edges 7.0.0
Acrobat TouchUp Image 7.0.0
AltiVecCore 7.0.0
Angled Strokes 7.0.0
Anti-aliased PICT 7.0.0
BMP 7.0.0
Bas Relief 7.0.0
Chalk & Charcoal 7.0.0
Charcoal 7.0.0
Chrome 7.0.0
Clouds 7.0.0
Color Halftone 7.0.0
Colored Pencil 7.0.0
CompuServe GIF 7.0.0
Conditional Mode Change 7.0.0
Contact Sheet II 7.0.0
Conté Crayon 7.0.0
Craquelure 7.0.0
Crosshatch 7.0.0
Crystallize 7.0.0
Cutout 7.0.0
Dark Strokes 7.0.0
De-Interlace 7.0.0
Detect Watermark 1.7.0
Difference Clouds 7.0.0
Diffuse Glow 7.0.0
Displace 7.0.0
Dry Brush 7.0.0
Embed Watermark X 1.7.0
Enable Async I/O 7.0.0
Export Transparent Image 7.0.0
Extract 7.0.0
Extrude 7.0.0
Film Grain 7.0.0
Filmstrip 7.0.0
Fit Image 7.0.0
Fresco 7.0.0
Generic EPS 7.0.0
Generic PDF 7.0.0
Glass 7.0.0
Glowing Edges 7.0.0
Grain 7.0.0
Graphic Pen 7.0.0
Halftone Pattern 7.0.0
Hidden NO VERSION
Ink Outlines 7.0.0
Lens Flare 7.0.0
Lighting Effects 7.0.0
Liquify 7.0.0
Mezzotint 7.0.0
Mosaic Tiles 7.0.0
Multi-Page PDF to PSD 7.0.0
Multiprocessor Support 7.0.0
NTSC Colors 7.0.0
Neon Glow 7.0.0
Note Paper 7.0.0
Ocean Ripple 7.0.0
PCX 7.0.0
PDF Image 7.0.0
PICT Resource 7.0.0
PNG 7.0.0
PNG Icon Parser 1.2.1
PPCCore 7.0.0
Paint Daubs 7.0.0
Palette Knife 7.0.0
Patchwork 7.0.0
Paths to Illustrator 7.0.0
Photo CD 7.0.0
Photocopy 7.0.0
Picture Package 7.0.0
Pinch 7.0.0
Pixar 7.0.0
Plaster 7.0.0
Plastic Wrap 7.0.0
Pointillize 7.0.0
Polar Coordinates 7.0.0
Poster Edges 7.0.0
Radial Blur 7.0.0
Read Watermark 1.7.0
Resize Image 7.0.0
Reticulation 7.0.0
Ripple 7.0.0
Rough Pastels 7.0.0
Save For Web 2.0.0
Shear 7.0.0
Smart Blur 7.0.0
Smudge Stick 7.0.0
Solarize 7.0.0
Spatter 7.0.0
Spherize 7.0.0
Sponge 7.0.0
Sprayed Strokes 7.0.0
Stained Glass 7.0.0
Stamp 7.0.0
Sumi-e 7.0.0
Targa 7.0.0
Texture Fill 7.0.0
Texture Maker 7.0.0
Texturizer 7.0.0
Tiles 7.0.0
Torn Edges 7.0.0
Twain Acquire 6.0.0
Twain Select 6.0.0
Twirl 7.0.0
Underpainting 7.0.0
Variations 7.0.0
Water Paper 7.0.0
Watercolor 7.0.0
Wave 7.0.0
Web Photo Gallery 7.0.0
Wind 7.0.0
Wireless Bitmap 7.0.0
ZigZag 7.0.0
Installed TWAIN devices: NONE

Well, thought you guys might find this interesting and I would share a taste, does anyone have a great hankering for time demos of any sort? I don't know how much they would tell you at this stage but like I said, filters do seem quick.

[Kurt S. Banning]

Oh, and the splash screen on Think Secret was accurate, no mock up.

[Moogs]

Interesting. Have they updated or otherwise modified any of the filters and effects? So many of those things are borderline worthless because of their weak pixel-averaging effects, etc...I hope they've at least made them a little more precise / useful. Or even tidy up some of the dialogs.

[More...]
From Railhead Design:

"Photoshop 7.0x034 Leaked
It’s been making the rounds at the usual “places,” and people are beginning to post all manner of screenshots on their websites — but the funny thing is, the beta 34 they’re using is almost two weeks old. However, the changes made since this build was leaked aren’t evident insofar as the interface is concerned. All the “basic” code has been rewritten, and the whole application is now feature-complete — all that remains is fleshing out what bugs may crop up. To that end, Adobe will be letting loose beta 38 either tonight or tomorrow, and there’s now a real chance we may get a release date announcement in January, which would be wonderful to say the least.

As far as me putting up screenshots, I’ll poke around this evening and see what I can come up with for tomorrow’s news."

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[Leonis]

Base on the overwhleming interest from users around the world I can predict the sales of Photoshop 7 for Mac will SOAR :cool:

Of course if nobody pirates ;)

I read somewhere on the web that the ratio of Mac/PC PS is around 60/40..... but with 7 and OS X I guess the ratio would be 80/20

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>

[SpiffyGuyC]

Got my copy a few minutes ago...pretty slick. The toolbar icons react just like in AI for X (new icons, become colorful on mouseover). Yes, ThinkSecret's articles were accurate, as were their screenshots, but they've since been removed at the request of Adobe's sharks. Going to play now....one note: the last user to comment noted some sluggishness and I noticed he was on a G3. I'm running a G4/500 (TiBook) and it's as snappy as PS6 in OS 9 for me. The only things that could be a good deal quicker are toolbar refreshes when switching to PS from another application (they take just a second to come up, but it seems this should be instant). And quit time is still long. But, it's a beta and still probably has debug in it.

One note is that Adobe did not go very far to make PS 7 X-like. I would have really appreciated the incorporation of the Aqua UI's "sheets," especially when the screen gets crowded. I'd love if they would tap into Aqua a bit more before release.

-S

[KidRed]

It's ok. I don't know why they are going to call it 7.0, there isn't much added. It doesn't rember the palette locations, and font management is now a pain. OS X doesn't recognize all my fonts like 9 did but I haven't tried suitcase for X yet because I read some negative things about it. Scroll wheel doesn't work when running in 9. Wierd.

You get spell check, find and replace, (only works in X not 9) a few new text buttons like inDesign, new icons which I think are ugly and distacting, they look too thick, too embossed. Switching between apps is slow as earlier noted. Keyboard shortcut for 'hide guides' apple+"'" now brings up the grid only.

New tools- Healing brush and patch tools.

Healing brush seems to be a stamp tool that feathers the edges after cloning the pixels. Not sure why that's useful.

Patch lets you move pixels within a selection and then feathers the inside edges. Again, not sure why that is useful.

Art history brush (that's new right?)It does all kinds of brush effects.

File browser- THANK GOD!! After 6.0 came out WITHOUT ' MAKE PREVIEW' i haven't been able to view thumbs of graphics that I needed to open up. So I had to resort to SimpleImage and MediaPro. No more!. This is basically graphicconverter image browser built in. Navigate to a folder and it makes thumbs of the images, then double click and it''s open. Yo can even delete images from it!

Slower than 6.5. Slower opening files, slower running filters, just slower over all. (beta of course)

ImageReady has a few new additions to it. But nothing mind boggling. Image Ready 7.0 or Adobe Eelpout 7.0 depending on where you look. What happened to Image Ready 4.0?

So, didn't see the "wrap text around 3d objects' as I think thinksecret said. And not sure about the new anti-aliasing from quartz looks the same as in 9.

So, maybe they'll add some more stuff, this was 043.

[Leonis]

There is no stylus support in this build :(

[BKuchta]

Besides what's been mentioned...

There's also new layer and brush modes, workgroup features. A brush palette that's kind of cool. You can choose from lists of presets for each tool. You can resize the curves window.

Although tablet pressure works for brush size I can't find anyway to make it work for opacity.

There's lots of little things through out.

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: BKuchta ]</p>

[Leonis]

Found them!

Under Brush option.

Size - go to brush size
Opacity - Go to other dynamics.

but you will have to enable EACH brush for the pressure and opacity....this is very annoying :mad: ....well...that's why it's beta...

Also, now the memory allocation is exactly the same as the Windows version. Have to 'reserve' the percentage of available RAM to PS....thought the memory allocation would adjust dynamically ......

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>

[Moogs]

Can anyone comment more on the Aqua UI - in terms of adherence to Apple's standard? Someone mention there is no support for Sheets. Are the open and save dialogs (for example) something that Adobe hacked together, or the standard OS X ones?

Are there are parts of the App that use Classic widgets and such? I can't imagine they would be that sloppy to mix them in but who knows.

Unfortunately none of you can comment to Adobe because then yer up shit creek and so is the guy who leaked the build (actually he's probably already off the beta team at this point, given hown many places it can be found). Dumb, dumb dumb.

[KidRed]

Picture a carbon port of PS with a few additions, and ugly thick embossed icons and you have PS 7. I'm disappointed if they don't make some more changes before it's released.

All the drop shadows are soooo annoying. The top tool bar casts shadows on the palettes and each palette casts shawdows on the palettes under them You acn't see the title bar or buttons because of these fricking drop shadows. Very annoying.

You want to get an idea of PS 7? Boot into 9 and open up PS while running Kaleidoscope with an Aqua theme.

Nothing spectacular.

[Moogs]

So basically, it's like Illustrator (from a visual standpoint)? That's what it looks like based on the screeshots I've seen. I agree the shadows are a little annoying but they're not as big a nuisance as you make them out to be. They certainly don't obscure the palette buttons (or if they do, Adobe will fix it).

I am more curious about the more substantive aspects of Aqua / Quartz under PS 7 though. The Open / Save Dialogs, font renderings, etc. Anyone else have a comment?

[cowerd]

[quote]I am more curious about the more substantive aspects of Aqua / Quartz under PS 7 though. The Open / Save Dialogs, font renderings, etc. Anyone else have a comment?<hr></blockquote>
I am surprised at the reports of PS and Quartz rendering [my polite way of saying bullshite], because since Adobe went cross-platform they have always used their own graphics display and font rasterizing technology. See AGMlib, CoolTypeLib and since Illustrator PDF50lib. I believe PS7 still uses AGMlib and CoolTypelib so any mention of Quartz and PS is probably wrong.

Like Illustrator, no sheets, standard save dialogs.

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>So basically, it's like Illustrator (from a visual standpoint)? That's what it looks like based on the screeshots I've seen. I agree the shadows are a little annoying but they're not as big a nuisance as you make them out to be. They certainly don't obscure the palette buttons (or if they do, Adobe will fix it).

I am more curious about the more substantive aspects of Aqua / Quartz under PS 7 though. The Open / Save Dialogs, font renderings, etc. Anyone else have a comment?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well, there are a lot of people that do mind the shadows, if you don't that's cool.

As for the other stuff, it's carbon, so it's not much different from the 9 version. The open and save are the standard under X, font rendering looked the same as in 9, I don't see how it could use X's quartz engine for anti-aliasing as everything looked like it does in 9, and it's carbon so it does run in 9.

As for the Aqua, looks just like Illustator, and as I said earlier, imagine running 9, using a Kaliedoscope Aqua theme and you have photoshop 7.

You can tell I'm not impressed? Did I mention it was slow?

[Zeno]

[quote]You want to get an idea of PS 7? Boot into 9 and open up PS while running Kaleidoscope with an Aqua theme.
Nothing spectacular.<hr></blockquote>

KidRed, you are really bullshitting!!! I can't believe what you're saying.
My impressions are completely different: in Photoshop 7 everything is BEAUTIFULLY "aquafied" and beautifully designed; look at the main toolbar (nearly the same as in illustrator): it's a piece of art!

Sorry, but your comparison between "PS under OS9 while running a Kaleidoscope theme" and the real PS 7 for OSX it's the greatest BS I've ever heard!

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Zeno ]

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Zeno ]</p>

[Sinewave]

What i find funny is.. Photoshop uses the extras.rsrc properly.. but Illustrator doesn't :rolleyes:

[Moogs]

meaning....?

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>meaning....?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Meaning that Adobe could make Photoshop not have any special Aqua resources but Illustrator does. Even though they use the same type of Widgets.

This means that Photoshop wont look weird if your not using Aqua.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Zeno:
<strong>

KidRed, you are really bullshitting!!! I can't believe what you're saying.
My impressions are completely different: in Photoshop 7 everything is BEAUTIFULLY "aquafied" and beautifully designed; look at the main toolbar (nearly the same as in illustrator): it's a piece of art!

Sorry, but your comparison between "PS under OS9 while running a Kaleidoscope theme" and the real PS 7 for OSX it's the greatest BS I've ever heard!

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Zeno ]

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Zeno ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but I don't see how you have any kind of power to call my opinion BullShit. Your opinion is BullShit. If it's like that, then go your own way and love PS 7 all you want. I have it, I've used it and it ain't all that. The main toobar looks axactly the smae what the hell are you talking about?

WHat the hell is aquaified about it? Do me a favor.

Open up system prefs.

Open up PS 7.

Do they look similar? No? Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ****ING AQUAFIED. It looks like 9 with Kaiedoscope. Why? Because I run 9 everyday and use an X theme with Kaliedoscope! Don't starting swinging profanities out and not expect to get any thrown back at ya. Your post is the great peice of shit I've ever read. You wanna get personally over opinions that's your choice.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
You can tell I'm not impressed? Did I mention it was slow?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Did anyone ever mention to you it was still a beta?

It's really annoying when people download illegal beta software on their puter then bitch cause it doesn't work right.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>


Did anyone ever mention to you it was still a beta?

It's really annoying when people download illegal beta software on their puter then bitch cause it doesn't work right.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah, yea, I think I mentioned that it was a beta in my first post :rolleyes:

I hate when people read posts and find something to bitch about instead of adding to the discussion.

The discussion is about PS X and not your bitching about about a post.

Also, read again and again and please quote where I said "..doesn't work right.." :rolleyes:

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

Ah, yea, I think I mentioned that it was a beta in my first post :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote></strong>
Then why are you complaining about beta software?
[quote]<strong>
I hate when people read posts and find something to bitch about instead of adding to the discussion.<hr></blockquote></strong>

I HAVE added to the discussion. But when you complain about software that is STILL in development and something your NOT supposed to have it makes you look foolish.

<strong> [quote]
The discussion is about PS X and not your bitching about about a post.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes and my post was also about PS X was it not?

<strong> [quote]
Also, read again and again and please quote where I said "..doesn't work right.." :rolleyes: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Did you not complain about the GUI not working right. .and how it was slow? :rolleyes:

This is what is called verbal masturbation folks.

[KidRed]

[quote] I HAVE added to the discussion. But when you complain about software that is STILL in development and something your NOT supposed to have it makes you look foolish. <hr></blockquote>

this is your previous quote-
[quote] It's really annoying when people download illegal beta software on their puter then bitch cause it doesn't work right. <hr></blockquote>

Wow, Thanks for adding that helpful and inteligent piece of PS 7 info!

[quote] Then why are you complaining about beta software?<hr></blockquote>

Because, just maybe, the icons will stay the same, the drop shadows will remain, nothing new will be added this far into developement...um, get the idea?

[quote] Yes and my post was also about PS X was it not? <hr></blockquote>

Um, no, read it again. It was your comment about me bitching about beta software. Nothing contributing to PS 7.

[quote] Did you not complain about the GUI not working right. .and how it was slow?

This is what is called verbal masturbation folks. <hr></blockquote>

This is what's called stupidity folks. How is complaing about speed and the icons being too big & drop shadows that are annoying stating that the software doesn't work? Yep, stupidity at it's stupidest :rolleyes:

We can continue the piss war (or flame war on mainstream boards) or we can further discuss PS 7.

If you have some intelligent questions I can provide some detailed answers to my best ability- have you had a go 'round with PS 7 yet? Have any questions?

[Eupfhoria]

uh...The thread was interesting until kidred flipped out... sorry man but you could have easily let it die...

It just seems to me that kid didn't add enough disclaimers to his post so sinewave flipped out.

Well, can we stop this and get back into the Photoshop X discussion?

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
this is your previous quote-
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes.. and was I not talking about Photoshop?!? Yes I was.
[quote]<strong>
Because, just maybe, the icons will stay the same, the drop shadows will remain, nothing new will be added this far into developement...um, get the idea?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well why don't you wait and see? Yes I am sure the drop shadpws will remain.. as this is a OS X app. All OS X apps do this. This isn't a Photoshop thing.. this is how OS X works. Also if you don't like the drop-shadows in the toolbar group them like this

http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/nodropshadows.jpg

<strong> [quote]
Um, no, read it again. It was your comment about me bitching about beta software. Nothing contributing to PS 7.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
My comment was about you bitching about a beta version of PS 7. Considering PS7 is beta.. and not for consumer consumption your bitching makes you look ill informed and basically a moron. People who grab illegal software off the net then come on forums and bitch cause it doesn't work the way they want it to more likely than not get told to piss off. Why? Cause it's beta. I was talking about your "and it's too slow" Saying that makes you look foolish when your talking about a beta son. If you knew anything about betaa software you'd know it's usually slower than the final version and you wouldn't have made such a comment. Understand?
[quote]<strong>
This is what's called stupidity folks.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh I agree. That is why I posted and pointed it out in the first place. Bitching about beta software being slow is quite stupid
[quote]<strong>
How is complaing about speed and the icons being too big & drop shadows that are annoying stating that the software doesn't work? Yep, stupidity at it's stupidest

<hr></blockquote></strong>
I said you said the "software didn't work right". SLOW = Software not working right.
Stop grabbing for straws.
[quote]<strong>
We can continue the piss war (or flame war on mainstream boards) or we can further discuss PS 7.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh I would love to continue discussing PS 7. Under the terms that we know it's a beta.. and that we not make ourselves look like we have our head up our ass by bitching about the over all slowness of beta software.
[quote]<strong>
If you have some intelligent questions I can provide some detailed answers to my best ability- have you had a go 'round with PS 7 yet? Have any questions?<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am *sure* I had used PS 7 before you got your hands on it son. And I am sure with your comments that I have read that you couldn't answer any questions about PS 7 that i don't all ready know.

Remember folks. When you d/l illegal beta software off the net.. it's going to be slow and it will usually have some quirks. Expecting it to be perfect makes you look like a horribly informed brat.

[cowerd]

Great. check Illustrator 10, totally different palette behavior. Drop shadows even when they are docked to each other. Annoying.

The PS team kicks #$@$%.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>Great. check Illustrator 10, totally different palette behavior. Drop shadows even when they are docked to each other. Annoying.

The PS team kicks #$@$%.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yeah I noticed that. How lame.
I hope Photoshop doesn't do this in the final version.

[Zeno]

[quote]Sorry, but I don't see how you have any kind of power to call my opinion BullShit. Your opinion is BullShit. If it's like that, then go your own way and love PS 7 all you want. I have it, I've used it and it ain't all that. The main toobar looks axactly the smae what the hell are you talking about?

WHat the hell is aquaified about it? Do me a favor.

Open up system prefs.

Open up PS 7.

Do they look similar? No? Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ****ING AQUAFIED. It looks like 9 with Kaiedoscope. Why? Because I run 9 everyday and use an X theme with Kaliedoscope! Don't starting swinging profanities out and not expect to get any thrown back at ya. Your post is the great peice of shit I've ever read. You wanna get personally over opinions that's your choice. <hr></blockquote>

I love you.

[KidRed]

[quote] Yes.. and was I not talking about Photoshop?!? Yes I was.
<hr></blockquote>

No. I was talking about PS 7 and you were talking about me bitching. That has nothing to do with your experience with PS. Damn, how dense are you?

[quote] Well why don't you wait and see? Yes I am sure the drop shadpws will remain.. as this is a OS X app. All OS X apps do this. This isn't a Photoshop thing.. this is how OS X works. Also if you don't like the drop-shadows in the toolbar group them like this <hr></blockquote>

The shadows will remain which is what I was bitching about. You don't read very well. The shadows I am talking about can be coded around-at least that's what developer extraordinaire Moki has said.

[quote] My comment was about you bitching about a beta version of PS 7. Considering PS7 is beta.. and not for consumer consumption your bitching makes you look ill informed and basically a moron. People who grab illegal software off the net then come on forums and bitch cause it doesn't work the way they want it to more likely than not get told to piss off. Why? Cause it's beta. I was talking about your "and it's too slow" Saying that makes you look foolish when your talking about a beta son. If you knew anything about betaa software you'd know it's usually slower than the final version and you wouldn't have made such a comment. Understand?
<hr></blockquote>

How is saying that PS is slow when it's a beta make me look foolish? Hey, genius, people asked about it and I spoke of my experience. No shit it will be sped up, but since the only version available is beta and it is currently slow, that's what I mentioned. You don't come to logical conclusions very well, do you?

[quote] I said you said the "software didn't work right". SLOW = Software not working right.
Stop grabbing for straws.<hr></blockquote>

Again, how is slow speed a sign that the software doesn't work? That's pure and utter stupidity. That's poor performance but that doesn't mean something is broken. Tweaking the apps speed sin't fixing bugs or glitches. You grabbed the straw and fell on your face.

[quote] Oh I would love to continue discussing PS 7. Under the terms that we know it's a beta.. and that we not make ourselves look like we have our head up our ass by bitching about the over all slowness of beta software.
<hr></blockquote>

I know it's a beta, you know it;s a beta, then what's the problem? Where did you get the idea that the speed was my biggest gripe? It was an obeservation. Take your head out of your ass and maybe you can comprehend posts a little better.

[quote] I am *sure* I had used PS 7 before you got your hands on it son. And I am sure with your comments that I have read that you couldn't answer any questions about PS 7 that i don't all ready know.

Remember folks. When you d/l illegal beta software off the net.. it's going to be slow and it will usually have some quirks. Expecting it to be perfect makes you look like a horribly informed brat. <hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the beta testing of pirated software class 101 there guy :rolleyes:

Ridiculing people's opinion just because you want to makes you an imature ass. Rember folks, this is about PS 7, and unless you have some input (which I haven't read any from you yet) then you are the obvious misinformed brat :eek:

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
No. I was talking about PS 7 and you were talking about me bitching. That has nothing to do with your experience with PS. Damn, how dense are you?
<hr></blockquote></strong>

I was talking about you bitching about a Beta of Photoshop 7. And as far as I can tell the topic said "Photoshop X?" meaning any Photoshop talk. Not that it matters. Your just grabbing for straws son.

[quote]<strong>The shadows will remain which is what I was bitching about. You don't read very well. The shadows I am talking about can be coded around-at least that's what developer extraordinaire Moki has said.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The Shadows don't remain when you group them. See look at the pic no over lap shadows. As far as I know there isn't any OS X apps out that don't have the 90° drop shadow. :rolleyes:
[quote]<strong>
How is saying that PS is slow when it's a beta make me look foolish? Hey, genius, people asked about it and I spoke of my experience. No shit it will be sped up, but since the only version available is beta and it is currently slow, that's what I mentioned. You don't come to logical conclusions very well, do you?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Next thing you know your going to be telling us the sky is blue. Or the grass is green.
[quote]<strong>
Again, how is slow speed a sign that the software doesn't work? That's pure and utter stupidity.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ok so it went from "Software not working right" to "Software not working" Big difference there Bub.. nice dodge there.. but it didn't work. Your arguing specifics and analness. Sure sign of the "grabbing of straws"
[quote]<strong>
That's poor performance but that doesn't mean something is broken. Tweaking the apps speed sin't fixing bugs or glitches. You grabbed the straw and fell on your face.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
When something runs slower than it's supposed to it's not working right. Again arguing semantics here. More straw grabbing.
[quote]<strong>
I know it's a beta, you know it;s a beta, then what's the problem? Where did you get the idea that the speed was my biggest gripe? It was an obeservation. Take your head out of your ass and maybe you can comprehend posts a little better.<hr></blockquote></strong>
When you bitch about a application being slow that is a beta you make it sound like you expected it to be better. I think we all know here who has their head up their ass son. I'll give you a hint.. it's not me.
[quote]<strong>

Thanks for the beta testing of pirated software class 101 there guy

<hr></blockquote></strong>
More verbal masturbation folks.
[quote]<strong>
Ridiculing people's opinion just because you want to makes you an imature ass.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I wasn't ridiculing your opion I was ridiculing the bases behind it. But I don't expect you to understand that
[quote]<strong>
Rember folks, this is about PS 7, and unless you have some input (which I haven't read any from you yet) then you are the obvious misinformed brat
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You might want to go back and look again sugar tits.

[KidRed]

[quote] Ok so it went from "Software not working right" to "Software not working" Big difference there Bub.. nice dodge there.. but it didn't work. Your arguing specifics and analness. Sure sign of the "grabbing of straws"
<hr></blockquote>

Hey non-comprehension little smart boy- read this again and tell me how you used your 3 brain cells to formulate your conclusion-
[quote] Picture a carbon port of PS with a few additions, and ugly thick embossed icons and you have PS 7. I'm disappointed if they don't make some more changes before it's released.

All the drop shadows are soooo annoying. The top tool bar casts shadows on the palettes and each palette casts shawdows on the palettes under them You acn't see the title bar or buttons because of these fricking drop shadows. Very annoying.

You want to get an idea of PS 7? Boot into 9 and open up PS while running Kaleidoscope with an Aqua theme.

Nothing spectacular. <hr></blockquote>

[quote] Next thing you know your going to be telling us the sky is blue. Or the grass is green <hr></blockquote>

I'll have to give you some credit for not being totally void of intelligence. Unless you cheated and someone told you those colors.

[quote] The Shadows don't remain when you group them. See look at the pic no over lap shadows. As far as I know there isn't any OS X apps out that don't have the 90° drop shadow.
<hr></blockquote>

Little boy, here, just for you I took 3 pics, yes I out did you. And let me point out just incase your little mind ins' capable of viewing and interpreting the following visual images-the palettes have drop shadows WHEN YOU CLICK ON THEM! I think that would happen, because, they are palettes that have features to be clicked on. Wow, that's why they have drop shadows :rolleyes:

http://www.kidredproductions.com/temp/pic1.jpg

http://www.kidredproductions.com/temp/pic3.jpg

http://www.kidredproductions.com/temp/pic2.jpg

[quote] When something runs slower than it's supposed to it's not working right. Again arguing semantics here. More straw grabbing.
<hr></blockquote>

Let's see you interpreted my statement about speed as meaning it doesn't work right. I then explain that I never said it didn't work correctly and you then say that "...it's semantics. More straw grabbing."

Sonny boy, you have an issue, an childhood issue that needs to be looked at. You miss interprent or simply lacked the mental capacity to comprehend a statement and your reasoning is I'm grabbing for straws!? HAHA, boy you need to stay in preschool.

[quote] When you bitch about a application being slow that is a beta you make it sound like you expected it to be better. I think we all know here who has their head up their ass son. I'll give you a hint.. it's not me <hr></blockquote>

Yea, I did expect it to be better. I expected the 3D text wrap like thinksecret said. I expected the shadows to be hardcoded out of the palettes. I expected a few new items worthy of a version 7 title.

You're more stupid then I originally assumed if you believe your head isn't far enough up your ass to not see the world in front of you and understand that you're bored little boy looking to start a flame war on the safe and secure internet when your scared little insecure ass wouldn't dream of being so bold in public.

[quote] More verbal masturbation folks<hr></blockquote>

Yep folks, at least my posts leave you satisfied. His posts need a few bottles of Niagra to get any satisfaction.

[quote] I wasn't ridiculing your opion I was ridiculing the bases behind it. But I don't expect you to understand that
<hr></blockquote>

Bases? Or basis? MMm, ok, well, let's see. I'll try my best and understand your smart intellilectual ways. So my opinion is based on my actual and personal experience with this concrete and tangible piece of software. Ok, I used the software, then I drew some conclusions. I used the software some more and then drew some more conclusions. Then after I had concrete infromation and field time I was able to formulate my opinion. Wow, little man, I gues you did baes your ridicule on my opinion and I guess you're wrong about me not being able to understand you. THAT was you trying to 'grab for straws' right there.

[quote] You might want to go back and look again sugar tits.
<hr></blockquote>

Sugar tits? HAHAHA Is that what all the little boys call you at school? Were you made fun of at school :(

ROTFLMAO You try, you really do and I'll give you props for that.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>

[KidRed]

Anyways, I discovered a few more things new in PS 7 and since I seem to be the only one trying to discuss 7, I'll add more info.

New in 7-
now when you double click on a layer it no longer pops the Blending Options window. Instead you are essentially clicking on just the file name. This allows you to change the file name without having to do so thru Layer Properties as before. I got used to the double click blending option window so this is disappointing and I will have to get used to it.

The Blending Options in the layer palette in more similar to ImageReady now- There's a little 'F' icon at the bottom of the layer palettes as in ImageReady. Clicking on it brings up a contextual menu of the options.

The beta didn't come with a dictionary so I couldn't test the spell checker (this was in 9, may differ in X)

I'll post back if I find anything else new.

[Moogs]

Kidred, The reason Adobe has changed the implementation of the blending options is because hundres of users have been begging for it. Most people felt the Layer Styles Dialog (I assume that's what you're referring to) was too big, and coule better be implemented as a dockable palette like ImageReady. So apparently Adobe has listened. This is GOOD news.

Furthermore, I wouldn't assume that just because you're looking at a mid-beta (which you are) that the eventual final appearance of the application will be exactly the same. I can't remember if Illustrator's palette tabs are aquafied or not, but if that's the only thing not aquafied in PS7, you're bitching about nothing. All of the command tools, control widgets and menus are aquafied, so just chill.

Contrary to the arguments going on, I thought the point of this thread was to let the rest of us non-carracho people how the product has changed. I still haven't heard anyone talk about the new features such as real-time warping of objects, etc.

Instead of saying "well there's function X, and I don't like it. Why not just post a small screenshot and let everyone decide for themselves? Sheesh.

[Michael Grey]

Maccentral <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/17.photoshop.php" target="_blank">is reporting</a> that Photoshop won't be available until Q2 2002.

[Leonis]

Usually....three months for one quarter.

I am not too sure when the Q1 starts....assuming Q1 starts January.....we should see Photoshop releases on April.

What a long wait! :mad:

[JLL]

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>Usually....three months for one quarter.

I am not too sure when the Q1 starts....assuming Q1 starts January.....we should see Photoshop releases on April.

What a long wait! :mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Since Chizen is talking about their financial year 2002, Q2 is March, April, and May.

[Leonis]

I guess Adobe's CEO said Q2 is to make people not expecting too much....

When he said Q1 then everyone will be very excited and in other words they are going to have a lot of pressure.

I still hope late February.....

[Moogs]

Well, you guys beat me to it. I take Q2 to mean second quarter of the calendar year. Which means friends *ahem* kidred *ahem* there's lot's of work yet to be done on the application. Aquafication and all. I seriously doubt the feature set is frozen yet. That usually happens about 6 weeks before release IME so they don't introduce new bugs close to production, etc.

[KidRed]

Moogs,
I am chill and I'm not bitching. Reacting publicly about my opinion is just that. Anyways, not here to fan the falmes :)

As I said earlier I haven't found any 3D text warping as claimed at ThinkSecret but something else I found was that when you resize via the bounding box, the image is resized live. And you can resize let go and see how the image looks, then it ok, corfirm the resize. Before you only saw the bounding box and had to assume the size was accurate. I like this.

Not sure about your palette dialog statement. If I understand you, then the dialog window size, look and feel is the same, only they added the ImageReady stylized 'F' to the layer palette so you have that option to bring up the Blending Options window. My comment wqs before you could double click on the active layer to prompt the options window. Now you have to right click and chose blending options or click on the F at the bottom of the palette.

[rok]

Q2 is usually used in context of the fiscal year, which i think ends in either october or november, so q2 would start in march (though, having lived up here in canada for the past three years, i'm not even sure of that anymore -- everything seems days, weeks or months "off" up here... thanksgiving, tax day, independence day... can you tell i am a transplanted yank?).

anyway, whatever it means, it DOES mean that it won't be shipping in january at macworld san francisco. damn... maybe i can get my jollies with indesign 2 (provided THAT is shipping come jan. 7)

does anyone know if the plug-in architecture has been changed for photoshop x, or am i gonna have to wait for upgrades for them, too?

good thing my wife's still a student -- these upgrades would put me in the poor house otherwise. ;)

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: rok ]</p>

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>good thing my wife's still a student -- these upgrades would put me in the poor house otherwise. ;)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually depending on which software....sometimes upgrades cost less than the full academic versions but sometime it's totally opposite

Example

1) Illustrator 10 - Upgrade costs $230 CDN vs $142 CDN for the full academic

2) Cinema 4D 7 - Upgrade costs $300US and $400 US for the full academic

3) Freehand/Flash/Dreamweaver - Upgrade cost at least $225 CDN each vs $145 each (academic)

4) Photoshop - $320CDN for upgrade and $445 CDN for full academic

5) Final Cut Pro - $479 CDN for upgrade and $450 for full academic


Basically.....I always go for the cheapest way cause I am a real cheap bastard ;)

When the academic version is cheaper than buying the upgrade....I then will ask my cousin to grab them for me

But in the case of Photoshop....upgrade cost is over $100 CDN less than the full academic....so in this case I will go for upgrade.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
Hey non-comprehension little smart boy- read this again and tell me how you used your 3 brain cells to formulate your conclusion-
<hr></blockquote></strong>

:rolleyes: You forgot this one :rolleyes:

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
You can tell I'm not impressed? Did I mention it was slow?
<hr></blockquote></strong>

Nice try son.. but you just got busted trying to dodge your statements. It may work on some loser that has never debated.. but it wont work on me.

[quote]<strong>
Little boy, here, just for you I took 3 pics, yes I out did you. And let me point out just incase your little mind ins' capable of viewing and interpreting the following visual images-the palettes have drop shadows WHEN YOU CLICK ON THEM! I think that would happen, because, they are palettes that have features to be clicked on. Wow, that's why they have drop shadows<hr></blockquote></strong>

And as I pointed out to you about 5 posts before this one.. you can dock the pallettes together as one.. so no drop shadows shows up. Try dragging the window headers to a separate pallette. This has worked in Photoshop for awhile now. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Obviously you don't know of what I am talking about because of your lack of Photoshop knowledge. Cowerd knew what I was talking about. Maybe he can explain it to you a tad better. But thanks for showing everyone in this thread how much real knowledge you have about Photoshop. :rolleyes:

[quote]<strong>
Let's see you interpreted my statement about speed as meaning it doesn't work right. I then explain that I never said it didn't work correctly and you then say that "...it's semantics. More straw grabbing."<hr></blockquote></strong>

When you say something it too slow your saying it's not working right. If it was wprking right it would not be slow. You WHERE arguing semantics.
[quote]<strong>
Sonny boy, you have an issue, an childhood issue that needs to be looked at. You miss interprent or simply lacked the mental capacity to comprehend a statement and your reasoning is I'm grabbing for straws!? HAHA, boy you need to stay in preschool.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ah more verbal masturbation.. all you did was to personally attack me.. and you proved nothing other than you had no point. No proof.. no backup. Your the type of poster that thinks if your reply with enough personal attacks you'll look right. But the people in this world that actually Read--&gt;Comprehend will see how FOS you are son. Your posts keep getting more and more like flames and less credible each time. I can't WAIT to read the next batch of garbage from you.
[quote]<strong>
Yea, I did expect it to be better. I expected the 3D text wrap like thinksecret said.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bet you get mad every MW that Steve doesn't show the LCD iMac too huh? :lol: Damn you Steve! MOSR said you'd release one! Boy am I pissed! Who's fault is this? Your own for believing lame rumor sites. :rolleyes:
[quote]<strong>
I expected the shadows to be hardcoded out of the palettes. I expected a few new items worthy of a version 7 title.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You expected the shadows to be hardcoded out of the pallettes? Why? That would not be following along with Aqua's guidelines. Like I showed you and told you again and again... you can group the pallettes together so there is no drop shadows between them.
[quote]<strong>
You're more stupid then I originally assumed if you believe your head isn't far enough up your ass to not see the world in front of you and understand that you're bored little boy looking to start a flame war on the safe and secure internet when your scared little insecure ass wouldn't dream of being so bold in public.<hr></blockquote></strong>
More verbal masturbation .. are you in Jr. High? Yes indeed if you was spouting off this nonsense IRL I would indeed tell you what a moron you was face to face.
[quote]<strong>
Yep folks, at least my posts leave you satisfied. His posts need a few bottles of Niagra to get any satisfaction.<hr></blockquote></strong>
From what I have read.. I am not the only one in this thread that thinks your a moron.. but you can be delusional all you want ;)
[quote]<strong>
Bases? Or basis? MMm, ok, well, let's see. I'll try my best and understand your smart intellilectual ways. So my opinion is based on my actual and personal experience with this concrete and tangible piece of software. Ok, I used the software, then I drew some conclusions. I used the software some more and then drew some more conclusions. Then after I had concrete infromation and field time I was able to formulate my opinion. Wow, little man, I gues you did baes your ridicule on my opinion and I guess you're wrong about me not being able to understand you. THAT was you trying to 'grab for straws' right there.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you re-read your posts before you hit the "add reply" button?
You used the software expecting it to act like a final product. When it didn't .. you made silly comments like "You can tell I'm not impressed? Did I mention it was slow?"
Since when hasn't Photoshop betas been slow? :rolleyes:

Complaining about features in a beta is one thing. Complaining about the responsiveness in it is another.

[quote]<strong>
Sugar tits? HAHAHA Is that what all the little boys call you at school? Were you made fun of at school </strong><hr></blockquote>

No that is my little pet name for you.. cause you argue like a woman. With no real reason or for-thought.

[KidRed]

[quote] You forgot this one <hr></blockquote>

Um, ok, I gave you too much credit. Obviously you don't have brain cells if you conclude "It doesn't work" from my statements about "not impressed' and "it's slow". Damn, you just get dumber as each post goes by.

[quote] Nice try son.. but you just got busted trying to dodge your statements. It may work on some loser that has never debated.. but it wont work on me. <hr></blockquote>

I'm not dodging any of my statements, you just don't have an arguement and now "you're grabbing for straws".

[quote] And as I pointed out to you about 5 posts before this one.. you can dock the pallettes together as one.. so no drop shadows shows up. Try dragging the window headers to a separate pallette. This has worked in Photoshop for awhile now. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Obviously you don't know of what I am talking about because of your lack of Photoshop knowledge. Cowerd knew what I was talking about. Maybe he can explain it to you a tad better. But thanks for showing everyone in this thread how much real knowledge you have about Photoshop. <hr></blockquote>

My lack of photoshop knowledge? Little child, I will run rings around your silly little ass and make you cry for your mama's breast when it comes to PS. I guess you're too stupid to notice the screencaps above. THEY HAVE DROPSHADOWS ONCE YOU CLICK ON A FREAKING PALETTE YOU MORON. Yes, they dock together and do not produce INDIVIDUAL shadows UNTIL you CLICK ON ONE. Them. like in my magical screen caps, THER SHADOWS MAGICALLY APPEAR. Damn, you get dumber by the sentence.

[quote] When you say something it too slow your saying it's not working right. If it was wprking right it would not be slow. You WHERE arguing semantics. <hr></blockquote>

You're slow but I wouldn't go as far as to say you were broken. VPC works correctly but is dog slow. Office is slow but I wouldn't say broken. ImageReady 3 (current) is slow but I wouldn't say it's broken. How many straws do you have because you've reached for a lot.

[quote] Ah more verbal masturbation.. all you did was to personally attack me.. and you proved nothing other than you had no point. No proof.. no backup. Your the type of poster that thinks if your reply with enough personal attacks you'll look right. But the people in this world that actually Read--&gt;Comprehend will see how FOS you are son. Your posts keep getting more and more like flames and less credible each time. I can't WAIT to read the next batch of garbage from you.
<hr></blockquote>

Your flames never were credible and started out as personal attacks from your first post so look in the mirror and check you self because you are the shit thrower here chump. My grabage will be just as thick as yours except you'll be just grabbing for the bag of straws now.

[quote] I bet you get mad every MW that Steve doesn't show the LCD iMac too huh? :lol: Damn you Steve! MOSR said you'd release one! Boy am I pissed! Who's fault is this? Your own for believing lame rumor sites.
<hr></blockquote>

Ooohh Yeess!! You are such a smart little boy. I use PS daily and earn my living on it, but yea, I think an new iMac would work really well with high end graphic apps. Ohh goody goody.

Hey genius, I mentioned the 3D text warp as mentioned in ThinkSecret BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY PUBLIC INFO AVAILABLE so I wanted to inform all the readers that I DID NOT FIND THIS FEATURE. So they are up to par on the current feature set versus what they've read at a rumor site. UNDERSTAND NOW? Damn, pretty soon I;'ll have to have my daughter finish deabting becasue she's more you're level. Wait, she's not old enough to type yet...sorry :(

[quote] You expected the shadows to be hardcoded out of the pallettes? Why? That would not be following along with Aqua's guidelines. Like I showed you and told you again and again... you can group the pallettes together so there is no drop shadows between them.
<hr></blockquote>

Genius, intil you click on one, read above and re-read it again and again....

[quote] More verbal masturbation .. are you in Jr. High? Yes indeed if you was spouting off this nonsense IRL I would indeed tell you what a moron you was face to face. <hr></blockquote>

Sorry little boy, JR High was a very long time ago. Trying to base my age on my nick ain't gonna work because genius, it's a nickname and most nickname stay with you for years and years.


As for calling me a moron to my face face, I'd knock you square on your puck little ass.

[quote] From what I have read.. I am not the only one in this thread that thinks your a moron.. but you can be delusional all you want
<hr></blockquote>

Well a side fom the one post saying I was bullshitting the only other post said YOU AND I BOTH lost it. So, genius, you're notting reading and comprehending again.

[quote] Do you re-read your posts before you hit the "add reply" button?
You used the software expecting it to act like a final product. When it didn't .. you made silly comments like "You can tell I'm not impressed? Did I mention it was slow?"
Since when hasn't Photoshop betas been slow?

Complaining about features in a beta is one thing. Complaining about the responsiveness in it is another.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not impressed is a silly comment? Oh do tell, how can that be silly? Adobe could very well release PS 7 as is (barring..) and charge the normal rates so an app that doesn't have many new features and it's as aquafied as I had hoped. So therefore, I'm not impressed. I was very impressed with 6.0, but then again, I don't want to have to walk you through everything so just take my word for it. Feature set is mininal and we all know X isn't itself a speeddemon and PS 7 being carbon X/9 I was expecting it to be a little more speedier. Why? Because I had a beta for 6.5, 6.0, 5.5 and yes, genius, you guessed it, they were faster. I know it will be faster but they have quite away to go to get it anywhere near 9, which is why I was expecting it to be a lot closer.

[quote] No that is my little pet name for you.. cause you argue like a woman. With no real reason or for-thought <hr></blockquote>

No it's for you, no it's for you, you're such a pussy. I argue like a women? Then that makes you a mentally challenged transsexual that only know how to nag, bitch, cry, kick, scream, and you yea, grab for straws.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
Um, ok, I gave you too much credit. Obviously you don't have brain cells if you conclude "It doesn't work" from my statements about "not impressed' and "it's slow". Damn, you just get dumber as each post goes by.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Some one is still arguing semantics and trying to use personal attacks to make himself look in the "know" Unimpressive.
<strong> [quote]
I'm not dodging any of my statements, you just don't have an arguement and now "you're grabbing for straws".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes you did .. you pruposably left off that last sentence. You tried to dodge it.. you got busted for it. Now your making excuses and more personal attacks. :rolleyes:
[quote]<strong>
My lack of photoshop knowledge? Little child
<hr></blockquote></strong>
When calling one a "little child" it shows your insecurity. But go ahead :)
[quote]<strong>
I will run rings around your silly little ass and make you cry for your mama's breast when it comes to PS.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yup I'd say Jr. High
[quote]<strong>
I guess you're too stupid to notice the screencaps above. THEY HAVE DROPSHADOWS ONCE YOU CLICK ON A FREAKING PALETTE YOU MORON.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh no they don't. Not in the version *I* am using 7.0X043 Beta. When you have the palletes dock clicking on them or the tabs DO NOT produce a drop shadow around each pallete.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, they dock together and do not produce INDIVIDUAL shadows UNTIL you CLICK ON ONE. Them. like in my magical screen caps, THER SHADOWS MAGICALLY APPEAR.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

Heh and again.. no they don't. Want me to take a SnapzPro movie of this so you can see?
[quote]<strong>
Damn, you get dumber by the sentence.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

Pot.. kettle..
[quote]<strong>
Your flames never were credible and started out as personal attacks from your first post so look in the mirror and check you self because you are the shit thrower here chump. My grabage will be just as thick as yours except you'll be just grabbing for the bag of straws now.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Heh more verbal masturbation and lack of content folks.
[quote]<strong>
Ooohh Yeess!! You are such a smart little boy. I use PS daily and earn my living on it, but yea, I think an new iMac would work really well with high end graphic apps. Ohh goody goody.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
How did you get that from anything I said? it's puzzling how you came up with that bizarro extreme.
[quote]<strong>
Hey genius, I mentioned the 3D text warp as mentioned in ThinkSecret BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY PUBLIC INFO AVAILABLE so I wanted to inform all the readers that I DID NOT FIND THIS FEATURE. So they are up to par on the current feature set versus what they've read at a rumor site
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You complained it wasn't there cause ThinkSecret said it would be. Is this Adobe
s fault? No. It's yours for believing everything you read.
[quote]<strong>
UNDERSTAND NOW? Damn, pretty soon I;'ll have to have my daughter finish deabting becasue she's more you're level. Wait, she's not old enough to type yet...sorry<hr></blockquote></strong>
More personal attack verbal masturbation.
[quote]<strong>
Genius, intil you click on one, read above and re-read it again and again....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And again.. your wrong here in a sec I am going to even make a movie JUST FOR YOU!
[quote]<strong>
Sorry little boy, JR High was a very long time ago. Trying to base my age on my nick ain't gonna work because genius, it's a nickname and most nickname stay with you for years and years.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Actually I was basing your age on the way you post. And the personal attacks. You sound like your in Jr.High. Your older than that? I guess some people never grow out of it.
[quote]<strong>
As for calling me a moron to my face face, I'd knock you square on your puck little ass.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You must knock a lot of people on their ass huh?
Yes I am sure you'd do that :rolleyes:
[quote]<strong>
Well a side fom the one post saying I was bullshitting the only other post said YOU AND I BOTH lost it. So, genius, you're notting reading and comprehending again.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So lets see TWO other people than me in this thread think your a idiot.. that is 3 people. VS my 0. Who's the idiot?
[quote]<strong>
I'm not impressed is a silly comment? Oh do tell, how can that be silly? Adobe could very well release PS 7 as is (barring..) and charge the normal rates so an app that doesn't have many new features and it's as aquafied as I had hoped. So therefore, I'm not impressed. I was very impressed with 6.0, but then again, I don't want to have to walk you through everything so just take my word for it. Feature set is mininal and we all know X isn't itself a speeddemon and PS 7 being carbon X/9 I was expecting it to be a little more speedier. Why? Because I had a beta for 6.5, 6.0, 5.5 and yes, genius, you guessed it, they were faster. I know it will be faster but they have quite away to go to get it anywhere near 9, which is why I was expecting it to be a lot closer.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ok we know this.. but your STILL COMPARING A BETA TO A FINAL VERSION!!? Expecting a beta to be as fast as the final is silly and basically ignorant. And NONE of the Photoshop BETAS have ever been as fast as the final. 6.5, 6.0, 5.5? Wow you have been using Photoshop long. :rolleyes:

[quote]<strong>
No it's for you, no it's for you,
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Good comeback! I'm rubber your glue.. :rolleyes:
[quote]<strong>
you're such a pussy.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
:rolleyes:
[quote]<strong>
I argue like a women? Then that makes you a mentally challenged transsexual that only know how to nag, bitch, cry, kick, scream, and you yea, grab for straws.<hr></blockquote></strong>
:rolleyes:

Oh yeah .. here is my proof to back up my argument.

<a href="http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/Photoshopscreensnapz001.mov" target="_blank">http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/Photoshopscreensnapz001.mov</a>

Look.. tabbed pallettes in Photoshop X. And LOOK when I choose a pallete.. no drop shadows!

How about that.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

[BuonRotto]

Thread-lockin' time!

Thank for ruining a perfectly good thread, boys!

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>Thread-lockin' time!

Thank for ruining a perfectly good thread, boys!

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't help it if Red can't admit to being wrong. If he still claims that docked pallets show drop shadows after I proved the didn't in the video.. than I will drop it. It will be well known that he is a idiot and no one will believe a thing he has to say.

[KidRed]

I tired to call a truce but genius boy got a ruffle in his panties and won't stop kicking. So, I have to present my rebuttal. But I do and have agreed that this thread has gotten out of hand.

(sinebaby, I didn't forget about ya :) ) But before I jump back into the pit with you I do have a question. I was able to get 2 palettes to link as you described but not sure how I did it. Can you explain how to do that to the palettes where the seemed to be joined? I use 3 palettes and only got the top 2 to join. I was humbly unaware of that feature and am plesantly surprised.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

I can't help it if Red can't admit to being wrong. If he still claims that docked pallets show drop shadows after I proved the didn't in the video.. than I will drop it. It will be well known that he is a idiot and no one will believe a thing he has to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>

**** you dick. I shouldn't have posted the above if I knew you're fairy little ass wouldv'e played the "I'm still mad and he's an idiot" route. I was not wrong is saying the palettes cast shadows-they do. I was unaware THERE WAS an alternative. Which you never said "hey, try this and you'll see.." cause you are too much an asshole to do something like that. I figured it out BTW so piss off.

[Sinewave]

Kid chill out..

Just drag the pallettes to the bottom of another pallete. That will let you dock them. I like it better this way cause it keeps my pallete locations. ANd in OS X .. it doesn't show the Drop Shadows.

[Moogs]

Do you have to literally dock them together into one mega-palette, or do you mean the behavior where if you drag one palette close enough to another it "snaps" it into place just below or above the next one (like in v6)?

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>Do you have to literally dock them together into one mega-palette, or do you mean the behavior where if you drag one palette close enough to another it "snaps" it into place just below or above the next one (like in v6)?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where it "snaps" into place.

[Moogs]

Glad for that....

Anyone seen any new builds leaked since last week?

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>Glad for that....

Anyone seen any new builds leaked since last week?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not that i know of.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Kid chill out..

Just drag the pallettes to the bottom of another pallete. That will let you dock them. I like it better this way cause it keeps my pallete locations. ANd in OS X .. it doesn't show the Drop Shadows.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Alright, alright, I'll chill :)

Yea I figured it out after I did the first one by accident. Not the best solution but MUCH better then dealing with the shadows. I still wish the same could happen with the top tool bar as the window fall under the shadow. I'm an artist so I'm gonna be nit-picky about sill stuff like this. I love X (otehr then it's speed which is why I use 9 mostly) but the shadow thing needs to be addressed. I've emailed Apple about the utility window coding should allow for adjoining windows.

Spell check is kinda cool. Anyone know why some fonts don't show up in X? I thought X was good with fonts. They all work in 9, but a good percentage don't show up when using Suitcase 10. Think it may be suitcase or X?

How do you set up fonts in X if I can;t get suitcase to work correctly? Also, any utility out to check fonts for X compatibilty?