or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007

post #1 of 98
Thread Starter 
Despite rumors to the contrary, Adobe Systems has no plans to release its much anticipated Creative Suite 3 for Intel Macs and Windows PCs later this year.

In an interview with Forbes, Adobe chief executive Bruce Chizen revealed that the software maker does not plan to launch Creative Suite 3 -- which will include the next generation of its applications like Photoshop -- until the second quarter of 2007.

"Acrobat is coming in the fourth quarter of 2006," Chizen said. "Creative Suite 3 will be introduced in the second quarter of 2007."

The Adobe chief went on to say that Acrobat will take advantage of the Macromedia assets acquired by the company and that "you'll see a lot of activity in the CS3 launch."

"There will be a lot of integration between [Macromedia] products and [Adobe] products as part of those offerings," he said. "By the time we launch CS3, the value of the two companies will be clear."

Commenting on specific applications, Chizen said the company is focusing Acrobat towards the architecture, construction and engineering market. The company is already working with manufacturers on Acrobat 3D, which it launched in January, he said.

On the other hand, Chizen refrained from making any specific announcement about what the company could potentially do with Photoshop.

"We've had a lot of customers coming to us and saying, 'We really love Photoshop for medical imaging, but it would be really cool if we could read the images coming out of the scanning system,' or, 'It would be really great if you had a measuring tool so I can measure with more exactness than I can today.' Or, or, or," he said. "You can imagine us having a more sophisticated version of Photoshop that appeals to those unique industries. But other than that, we haven't said exactly what we're doing."

Earlier this month, overly-optomistic reports began to surface on Internet Web sites, suggesting Adobe could be ready to push Creative Suite 3 into market by the end of 2006.

In a February report, AppleInsider suggested that the software suite looked to be as many 14 months away at that point.

Adobe has also publicly stated that it will not deliver Intel Mac support of its Creative Suite applications until the 3.0 release.
post #2 of 98
CS3 not ready until Q2 '07 - check
PPC Photoshop plugins won't work with new Intel Macs - check
Photoshop code and APIs used = dinosauric - check
Adobe not the Adobe it was 10-15 years ago - check
Adobe doesn't care about you - check

Developers, start your engines. This is your chance to topple Adobe. MS will be coming out with a PS alternative for Windows...you can too for the Mac. There won't be a monopoly in 2007...there will be a handful of decent alternatives to PS.

Because old Photoshop plugins won't work on the new Intel-based Macs, everyone's starting from scratch anyways...why not get a head start and release something clean and flexible (re: plugins) that uses CoreImage as the pixel-shading engine. Use the user's swelling hatred for Adobe to lure them to your product.

The estimate is Q2 '07...but who knows, it could be pushed back to Q3 or even Q4. Nobody wants to wait that long.

PS ...I hope Apple murders Adobe in its sleep. Oh...and Lightroom and Bruce sucks.
post #3 of 98
Aperture!

Years ahead of CS3!

Now, if we could only get it to 1.1.....
post #4 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
Aperture!

Years ahead of CS3!

Now, if we could only get it to 1.1.....

Aperture doesn't do page layout or vector graphics, and although I'm not familiar with it, I'm pretty sure it doesn't do too much image manipulation and effects. If you're a photographer, none of this matters, but if you're a designer, CS3 is much more than just image editing. Why does everyone associate CS3 with just Photoshop? I buy it mainly for InDesign and Illustrator.
post #5 of 98
A 2007 launch of CS3 Adobe must really be sure for quality of marketing purposes that is best.

The Forbes article clearly states that Adobe's profits are down and that will effect its stock price. Adobe's reaction to this should be to get new software out as quickly as possible.

Adobe's best selling software won't see new versions for another year. Looking the situation they must have a good reason.
post #6 of 98
Wow Adobe just did a "No Vaseline" on Apple users. While I'm excited for the potential of CS3 I feel for Mac users who want to tap into some new Dual Core luv with Adobe Apps.

Why don't they just UB their CS2 and be done with it? FFS

Makes me wonder who owns the old Live Picture Code. Hell bring back TIFFany!
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #7 of 98
They probably don't want to try porting CS2 to MacOS X Intel simply because they are already in the development phase of CS3. When you have a limited number of resources you want to concentrate them on the project which is going to have the most benefit.

Something else to mention is that the power horses of the Apple line are still PowerPC only. These are the computers that most media developers are using at the moment and until these are Intel based, Adobe probably doesn't see much of need to hurry up. If you are selling a media solution at $1000, then you can only expect the pros to be donkeying up that money.
post #8 of 98
WTF is up with Adobe proclaiming "What Took You So Long" when Apple announced the move to Intel, and two years later Adobe will not have a Universal Binary ready for Intel machines???

Didn't Apple warn Adobe almost 4 years ago to get started moving over to X Code?

The few code mac code geniuses left Adobe long ago, and they are unable to find quality replacements after all this time? It's a multi billion dollar company!

Adobe tried to get the creative industry to switch to the PC platform, have demanded feature parity between mac and windows versions of Photoshop even though the Mac platform offers far greater technological capabilities. Even MS Office offers better mac features than windows ones, and Adobe can't do the same?

I hope Aperture will become a Photoshop killer now. Adobe has no choice than to continue with mac development going forward, since they can't afford to lose further profits.

This delay for "quality reasons" is hurting mac creative professionals who want a hardware speed upgrade. Bad for Adobe, I'm afraid. Their horrid corporate decisions to screw the mac platform and hold it back is now biting them in the arse.
post #9 of 98
It's a huge pain if this is true, but Apple may just have to keep selling G5 towers alongside the Intel models.

I don't blame Adobe: this sounds like a big release and legitimately a lot of work. This is just one of those things.
post #10 of 98
Apple has been telling Adobe to switch to Xcode for probably at least 5 years now, and Adobe probably knew about the switch to Intel for at least a year.

Personally, I think it's all about profits. Adobe wants to sell as many copies of CS3 as possible, so they're deliberately not realising a universal binary of CS2.

Light Room, on the other hand, didn't seem to cause them any problems (and remember, it's been in development for years on PPC, and they were literally able to make a universal binary in a couple of weeks).
post #11 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Why don't they just UB their CS2 and be done with it? FFS

I'm pretty sure CS2 isn't a Cocoa Xcode application & :. can't be made into a UB so easily.

Hopefully, CS3 will be UB, though. When I moved over to PowerPC Mac in January, I put off cross-upgrading Windows CS to Mac CS2 in preference of a UB CS3 cross-upgrade. (Reason being that although my current Mac is PowerPC, any Mac I buy in future will be Intel - I want a long term investment for the $175 cross-upgrade charge!)

So, I'm kicking myself at the news that I'll have to wait another year for a UB Photoshop.

[EDIT:] I just noticed my comment here could be misunderstood: when I say, "Hopefully, CS3 will be UB", I mean, "Hopefully, CS3 will be backwards compatible with PowerPC systems" as opposed to, "Hopefully, CS3 will run natively on Intel"!
post #12 of 98
At least in my pro industry (film and video) people for the most part are not intently keeping track of the latest hardware software. Everyone I know uses Photoshop. Most post house have Creative Suite loaded on all their machines

Most of their energy and attention is on the work at hand. Mostly the film/video industry lags a bit in new technology adoption.

I know quite a few people who are buying MacBooks. And its not really because of the Intel chips. Most are people who have never owned a Mac and don't know anything about processors. The minority are people replacing a 4 or 5 year old PowerBook that has finally run out of steam.

When the G5 was introduced in 2003 most post shops I know went on with their Power Mac dual G4. Most post houses I know made the switch to the G5 around late 2004 into early 2005.

The reason they decided the switch is because the new workflow proved more efficient and productive than their current workflow which justified the expense and upheaval of the new hardware.

Currently most are fine with their PM G5 workflow. I don't expect many to switch to Intel PM until mid 2007 into early 2008. Depending on the performance of the Intel Core vs G5.

All of that to say. In the film/video industry it doesn't really matter or impact so much when Adobe releases CS3.
post #13 of 98
Over another year! This totally sucks. This has to be the longest interval between updates in forever for Adobe. Any other time I finally get workarounds for all the bugs figured out just as a new version comes out.

As far as inDesign vs Quark, Adobe just shot themselves in the foot big time -- anyone still on the fence like me will obviously be sticking with Quark for at least another year, considering Intel support is right around the corner. Too bad there isn't an alternative to Photoshop or slow-even-when-not-emulated-Illustrator ...
post #14 of 98
Pros aren't keeping up with the intel news? Oh yeah? Wait until Apple announces the new ProMacs in August. They will blow the G5's out of the water, and most pros will hear about it.


Ooops, no creative suite for you all until mid 2007, unless you want slow-as-molasses performance.

Thanks, Adobe, for putting the mac platform on the backburner for all these years. Now we'll have to wait while you work on the "quality" of it all. Funny thing is, it still won't leverage the capabilities of mac os x.
post #15 of 98
Quote:
Pros aren't keeping up with the intel news? Oh yeah?

I didn't say they weren't keeping up with the news. They know the Intel Mac's exist.

But when you run a business you don't buy new software or hardware merely because of its existence. New purchases need to add efficiency, functionality, productivity which over all adds sales.

Plus when shops add new hardware or software they are not buying a license for one machine. They are spending hundreds of thousands to build and support many machines.
post #16 of 98
Not being a programmer here -- this may be a dumb question. But is there any possibility that Rosette could be tweaked to perform better for CS2, or that plug-ins could be written to help optimize performance?

I'm just thinking that if Apple introduces a new pro line that quite a few designers will be chomping at the bit to grab a new machine.
post #17 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
CS3 not ready until Q2 '07 - check
PPC Photoshop plugins won't work with new Intel Macs - check
Photoshop code and APIs used = dinosauric - check
Adobe not the Adobe it was 10-15 years ago - check
Adobe doesn't care about you - check

Developers, start your engines. This is your chance to topple Adobe. MS will be coming out with a PS alternative for Windows...you can too for the Mac. There won't be a monopoly in 2007...there will be a handful of decent alternatives to PS.

Because old Photoshop plugins won't work on the new Intel-based Macs, everyone's starting from scratch anyways...why not get a head start and release something clean and flexible (re: plugins) that uses CoreImage as the pixel-shading engine. Use the user's swelling hatred for Adobe to lure them to your product.

The estimate is Q2 '07...but who knows, it could be pushed back to Q3 or even Q4. Nobody wants to wait that long.

PS ...I hope Apple murders Adobe in its sleep. Oh...and Lightroom and Bruce sucks.

Kim, there are a few good reasons why this won't be ready sooner.

First of all, it's not that Adobe doesn't care about its Mac customers. They are being a responsible company, and caring about their own product line first. That's the important thing to remember. They aren't (nor is any other company) a division of Apple.

Secondly, MS just announced that they won't be producing their "Photoshop killer" after all. Too difficult.

Three is that Adobe bought Macromedia, and as they have said, they want to integrate that software into the suitea very good idea. But, that is adding a good quarter to the rollout timing.

Four concerns the fact that this will give plug-in companies more time to convert their own software to Universal Binaries in time for The Suite.

The rest of your statements are just coming from your dislike of Adobe for some reason, and are not something you can point to as facts.

There is NO user hatred for Adobe. This isn't Quark.
post #18 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
WTF is up with Adobe proclaiming "What Took You So Long" when Apple announced the move to Intel, and two years later Adobe will not have a Universal Binary ready for Intel machines???

Didn't Apple warn Adobe almost 4 years ago to get started moving over to X Code?

The few code mac code geniuses left Adobe long ago, and they are unable to find quality replacements after all this time? It's a multi billion dollar company!

Adobe tried to get the creative industry to switch to the PC platform, have demanded feature parity between mac and windows versions of Photoshop even though the Mac platform offers far greater technological capabilities. Even MS Office offers better mac features than windows ones, and Adobe can't do the same?

I hope Aperture will become a Photoshop killer now. Adobe has no choice than to continue with mac development going forward, since they can't afford to lose further profits.

This delay for "quality reasons" is hurting mac creative professionals who want a hardware speed upgrade. Bad for Adobe, I'm afraid. Their horrid corporate decisions to screw the mac platform and hold it back is now biting them in the arse.

Two years? Maybe 18 months. No one started development in June of last year, except makers of rather small programs.

There are good reasons why it will take as long as it will. I gave some reasons why in my last post. There are more.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html

Apple themselves are still coding some programs on MetroWorks. They are just now moving off. It's one of the reasons why AppleWorks is dead.

Adobe never tried to get the industry to switch to PC's. People were switching, and Adobe had to accommodate them. Most people in Adobe are themselves Mac users.

Give up this nonsense about Aperture! This has been settled. It is NOT a PS killer.

Stop talking like a fanboi.
post #19 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
Over another year! This totally sucks. This has to be the longest interval between updates in forever for Adobe. Any other time I finally get workarounds for all the bugs figured out just as a new version comes out.

As far as inDesign vs Quark, Adobe just shot themselves in the foot big time -- anyone still on the fence like me will obviously be sticking with Quark for at least another year, considering Intel support is right around the corner. Too bad there isn't an alternative to Photoshop or slow-even-when-not-emulated-Illustrator ...

i don't understand this logic. so you're likely to buy an intel machine that supports a ub version of your layout app, but runs your image editing app in emulation? that makes no sense. photoshop is by far the most processor-intensive application in the whole workflow of graphic design and publishing. who in their right mind would buy ub quark to run on an intel mac but still run photoshop under rosetta?

it's more likely that people who depend on photoshop and indesign/quark would have bought machines of the last generation of power pc to tide them over through the transition. sure i'd like to have a mac book pro but it's just not logical right now for the things i do on it. until photoshop runs natively on intel macs, most graphics people just won't switch. so quark's universal binary-ness is basically moot.
post #20 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
i don't understand this logic. so you're likely to buy an intel machine that supports a ub version of your layout app, but runs your image editing app in emulation? that makes no sense. photoshop is by far the most processor-intensive application in the whole workflow of graphic design and publishing. who in their right mind would buy ub quark to run on an intel mac but still run photoshop under rosetta?

it's more likely that people who depend on photoshop and indesign/quark would have bought machines of the last generation of power pc to tide them over through the transition. sure i'd like to have a mac book pro but it's just not logical right now for the things i do on it. until photoshop runs natively on intel macs, most graphics people just won't switch. so quark's universal binary-ness is basically moot.

Well I am a graphic designer and I am buying a MacBook. I love apple, but no amount of Kool-Aid would have convinced me to by a lame two generation old G4 "powerbook" anytime in the last two years.

When I really need to do work with Adobe programs, I will use my desktops. Given that Quark will run decently on the MacBook, and I will be moving jobs back and forth, that is why Indesign will be an afterthought for the foreseeable future for me -- I want to be able to do SOMETHING productive on my laptop and not be constantly chained to my work area

BTW Illustrator is a much greater resource hog then Photoshop in my book. On a dual g5, Photoshop is no problem even with 500-750mb files. Try editing text in Illustrator, that will really grind your machine to a halt in a hurry!
post #21 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
sure i'd like to have a mac book pro but it's just not logical right now for the things i do on it. until photoshop runs natively on intel macs, most graphics people just won't switch. so quark's universal binary-ness is basically moot.


Haha, look, there's the precise reasoning that Adobe is using to justify their delayed release of CS3!!

Power user: I don't NEED an Intel Mac till I can buy a UB version of CS, which won't be for a while.

Adobe: Our users won't be buying an Intel Mac for a while, so we really don't NEED to put out a UB version of CS for a while.


What if you pulled a Copernicus on that? Would a lot of Pro users buy the first generation Mac Pro dual core Intel running at 3GHz each (benched at 1.5x faster than current G5 quads) this August if Adobe shipped CS3 (or released a UB CS2) at the same time?

I think the answer would be yes.
post #22 of 98
i understand the marketing aspect of what adobe is doing. but my point is, when i'm using adobe apps for money it's not a place for software idealism. sure adobe might be manipulating me in some fashion, but the fact of the matter is, i bought computers appropriately based on the information available to me about apple's computer roadmap. that's why i bought a quad g5.

would i prefer that adobe had their codebase up to date making the transition easier? sure. but in the end, it makes no difference to me. i bought my system to perform a given task at a given speed. whether or not adobe updates to universal binary is irrelevant because i won't buy an intel mac for a while. and as far as i know, adobe isn't making cs2 slower for me than when i bought it.

it seems to me that most people who are bitching about this whole thing are doing it for philosophical reasons rather than practical ones. someone in one of the other threads claimed that quark was going to steal away marketshare from adobe illustrator because adobe was taking too long to go to ub. that to me shows that people are just pissed for the sake of being pissed. even if they don't use the tools, they're still angry about it. who cross-shops quark and illustrator?

yes adobe pisses me off sometimes, but i can minimize their effect on my workflow by buying my hardware appropriately.

as far as the previous poster switching back to quark because its ub-ness rather than run indesign cs2 under emulation, have at it. but i would at least try to run cs2 under rosetta before switching back to quark. in fact, not much could make me switch back to quark (and i was an avid quark user for 12 years). the only people i see being swayed by quark's universal binariness are people who are right on the verge of switching to ID. for those of us who have switched, going back to quark is not really an option.

p.s. you're right, illustrator is just plain awful right now. i mean, c'mon, it's all vectors!
post #23 of 98
Delay in Windows Vista = delay in CS3.
post #24 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
who cross-shops quark and illustrator?

Heh, I've seen more than one self-proclaimed DTP designers trying to do layout in Illustrator back in the day ;-)

As for me, I'm just bitchin' because having a UB CS would give me the necessary excuse to transition to Intel/Mac as soon as it comes out, and, being a good ol' geek on top of being a pro user, that is alluring. But alas, I'll just have to wait it out.
post #25 of 98
Maybe CS3 will only work with Mac OS X 10.5 and Windows Vista. Same time frame for both releases apparently.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #26 of 98
I would say something about this, but I can't seem to get this phallic symbol with a white A with red outline on it out of my mouth and a$$.
post #27 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
I would say something about this, but I can't seem to get this phallic symbol with a white A with red outline on it out of my mouth and a$$.

With something as unneccessary as that, you could have done better to say nothing at all.
post #28 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by xanthohappy
Aperture doesn't do page layout or vector graphics,

PS CS 2 does vectors and page layout? Last I heard i was a raster based tool, nothing more nothing less. You need something like indesign pagemaker or quark for layout and illustrator and the like for vector.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #29 of 98
Originally posted by ajmas
........Something else to mention is that the power horses of the Apple line are still PowerPC only. These are the computers that most media developers are using at the moment and until these are Intel based, Adobe probably doesn't see much of need to hurry up. If you are selling a media solution at $1000, then you can only expect the pros to be donkeying up that money.



This is very true but the portable powerhorse of the Apple line is the Macbook Pro ~ which leaves all the portable power users of Adobe and Macromedia, to paraphrase naughtily, drowning in a creek with a paddle up their ass.
post #30 of 98
If I were Steve I would be soo fucking pissed at Adobe right now. Bruce fucked him big time. I would say this is enough for Steve to cut off the working relationship with Bruce, throw millions of dollars of R&D money in developing Apple's own InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, Dreamweaver.... oh wait. Fuck. That's hell of a lot to do. In less than a year

The entire creative industry, a huge chunk of Mac sales, is so dependent on Adobe/Macromedia, this has been a huge mistake by Apple management in hindsight.

The following solutions are what I forsee:
1. move as much as possible of sales and profit targets to the consumer side
2. continue to push PowerPC desktops through the year for pros
3. work on Rosetta like hell to get the Macbook Pro running PowerPC apps as fast as possible
4. work on Bruce like hell to get him to speed up CS3 Adobe|Macromedia so that by end of 2006 all parity is restored and creative pros can get back to doing what they do best without worrying about Intel-this and Rosetta-that
post #31 of 98
Originally posted by Bulky Cranium
Not being a programmer here -- this may be a dumb question. But is there any possibility that Rosette could be tweaked to perform better for CS2, or that plug-ins could be written to help optimize performance?



This is generally the crucial work that Apple needs to be done (either by Apple or third parties in the case of plug-ins) or Mac sales in 2006 *will* suffer.


Originally posted by Bulky Cranium
I'm just thinking that if Apple introduces a new pro line that quite a few designers will be chomping at the bit to grab a new machine.



Not if Adobe/Macromedia software still runs 3 times as slow (as they do now) on the Intel machines compared to existing PowerPC machines.
post #32 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
Maybe CS3 will only work with Mac OS X 10.5 and Windows Vista. Same time frame for both releases apparently.

10.4 and XP.
post #33 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
PS CS 2 does vectors and page layout? Last I heard i was a raster based tool, nothing more nothing less. You need something like indesign pagemaker or quark for layout and illustrator and the like for vector.

There is far more in PS than people who don't use it, realise.
post #34 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
CS3 not ready until Q2 '07 - check
PPC Photoshop plugins won't work with new Intel Macs

And OS 9 Plugins didn't work with OS X versions of Photoshop. Photoshop did'nt die off as a consequence

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Photoshop code and APIs used = dinosauric

Not knowing the first thing about programming, I'll take your word on this one. But honestly, does this affect my use of Photoshop in any practical way? Perhaps it could be faster and more reliable (I dont have any major complaints about this anyway). Sure, its nice to know that an application is optimized, but really, how does this help me work faster and better in any significant way? (Aperature after all supposedly is technically advanced but still is rather slow from what I have heard)

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Adobe not the Adobe it was 10-15 years ago

Apple is not the Apple it was 10-15 years ago.

Come on, lets be real. Have any of the apps in the Creative Suite gotten worse in that time period? (I know not all of them have been around that long, but you can replace InDesign with PageMaker and it all works out) I for one find the tools that Adobe provides much, much more useful and efficient than they were 10 years ago (that was about the time I started using them).

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Adobe doesn't care about you

Adobe cares about money. As does Microsoft. As does Apple.
They care about their customers because customers are the way they earn money. Adobe has no intention of ticking off its customers, but it must be practical and efficient in the way it uses its resources. I for one am glad they are spending the time to incoporate Macromedia's products into the Creative Suite. This will be very valuable to my workflow and the more polished the integration, the better off many users will be.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
MS will be coming out with a PS alternative for Windows...

I laugh in your general direction.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I hope Apple murders Adobe in its sleep.

Ok, If I read one more person claiming that Aperature can replace Photoshop, Im going to snap.

Does Aperature have the capability to do compositing?
Does Aperature have layers?
Does Aperature have layer masks?
Does Aperature have curves?
Does Aperature have the ability to place and edit text?
Does Aperature have the tools necessary to do advanced retouching?
Does Aperature have an advanced brush engine? (yes, I know Painter is much better than Photoshop as far as this is concerned)
Can you create a work of art from a blank slate in Aperature?

The list goes on and on and on. Im not trying to bag on Aperature, its an important step in the evolution of digital photo workflow. I hope to see more from it and Lightroom in future versions. But they dont even come close to competing in any way at all.

Please people, be real...
post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
There is far more in PS than people who don't use it, realise.

this is true. photoshop is useful for vectors in some cases like tracing images. i usually just copy my path into illustrator rather than importing an image into illustrator to outline it. but page layout in photoshop is retarded. i don't care how much anyone knows about photoshop, pages should not be laid out in it. so his original comment still stands. i wouldn't say photoshop was a vector tool even though it has some vector functionality.
post #36 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
If I were Steve I would be soo fucking pissed at Adobe right now. Bruce fucked him big time. I would say this is enough for Steve to cut off the working relationship with Bruce, throw millions of dollars of R&D money in developing Apple's own InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, Dreamweaver.... oh wait. Fuck. That's hell of a lot to do. In less than a year

The entire creative industry, a huge chunk of Mac sales, is so dependent on Adobe/Macromedia, this has been a huge mistake by Apple management in hindsight.

The following solutions are what I forsee:
1. move as much as possible of sales and profit targets to the consumer side
2. continue to push PowerPC desktops through the year for pros
3. work on Rosetta like hell to get the Macbook Pro running PowerPC apps as fast as possible
4. work on Bruce like hell to get him to speed up CS3 Adobe|Macromedia so that by end of 2006 all parity is restored and creative pros can get back to doing what they do best without worrying about Intel-this and Rosetta-that

Adobe is working as quickly as they can. This is a very big undertaking. People who belittle its difficulty are not really aware of how much work is involved. I'm hoping that they will send me my first beta no later than May.
post #37 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
this is true. photoshop is useful for vectors in some cases like tracing images. i usually just copy my path into illustrator rather than importing an image into illustrator to outline it. but page layout in photoshop is retarded. i don't care how much anyone knows about photoshop, pages should not be laid out in it. so his original comment still stands. i wouldn't say photoshop was a vector tool even though it has some vector functionality.

PS is a one page solution. Many designers I have worked with over the years have used PS for one page layouts. After Adobe enhanced typesetting, as well as other features, that became far more common.

I would rather see one page layouts done in PS than in Quark.
post #38 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
PS is a one page solution. Many designers I have worked with over the years have used PS for one page layouts. After Adobe enhanced typesetting, as well as other features, that became far more common.

I would rather see one page layouts done in PS than in Quark.

why in the world would you want that? why create gigantic photoshop files when most of the layers are things that can be defined by vectors in indesign or quark? with transparency support in indesign it just doesn't make sense anymore. years ago before we have indesign or general transparency support in quark or indesign i guess i could see it.

what if a client calls back in three months and needs that same layout done for a tabloid pub instead of a letter-size pub? are you just going to uprez the picture and have it be blurry (because you've obviously downrezzed it to a specific dimension and dpi)? or do you just rebuild the whole thing again using different parameters and hope you don't need to do any more resizes?

just because some things can be done in photoshop doesn't mean that's the best tool for the job. and this is coming from a huge photoshop fan and user. yes, i've also seen it done, sometimes by friends of mine. usually it's because they just didn't know how to accomplish what they wanted in indesign. to me it's intellectual laziness. and yes they're all professionals too. there are varying degrees of knowledge on software programs obviously. i always shake my head when people show me a layout done in photoshop.
post #39 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
CS3 not ready until Q2 '07 - check
PPC Photoshop plugins won't work with new Intel Macs - check
Photoshop code and APIs used = dinosauric - check
Adobe not the Adobe it was 10-15 years ago - check
Adobe doesn't care about you - check

Developers, start your engines. This is your chance to topple Adobe. MS will be coming out with a PS alternative for Windows...you can too for the Mac. There won't be a monopoly in 2007...there will be a handful of decent alternatives to PS.

Because old Photoshop plugins won't work on the new Intel-based Macs, everyone's starting from scratch anyways...why not get a head start and release something clean and flexible (re: plugins) that uses CoreImage as the pixel-shading engine. Use the user's swelling hatred for Adobe to lure them to your product.

The estimate is Q2 '07...but who knows, it could be pushed back to Q3 or even Q4. Nobody wants to wait that long.

PS ...I hope Apple murders Adobe in its sleep. Oh...and Lightroom and Bruce sucks.

Preach on, brother!
post #40 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
as far as the previous poster switching back to quark because its ub-ness rather than run indesign cs2 under emulation, have at it.

Thats just it, I haven't switched to InDesign yet, I was only considering it. We have some clients who need files in Indesign format, so I am currently using InDesign CS2 along with Quark 6.5 (and occasionally Beta 7). Given the UB situation, I won't seriously consider switching for good until CS3 now. There are still things in Quark I prefer over InDesign, so for me it is not worth trying to fiddle with in Rosetta. There are still a lot of Quark users, so I am sure I am not alone in this.

The more I think about the situation, the idea of ALL of my programs being Adobe/Macromedia owned is starting to really bother meit makes me want to stick with Quark just on principle. If not Apple, I wish someone would come out with some real competition (Microsoft's forth coming products do not count) for Adobe, it is not healthy to have an entire industry at the mercy of one company.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007