or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe to update some Creative Suite 3 apps for Leopard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe to update some Creative Suite 3 apps for Leopard

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Adobe said this past weekend that while many of its Creative Suite 3.0 applications are already compatible with Apple's new Leopard operating system, a handful of applications including Acrobat and its professional video offerings will require small updates for full compatibility.

Specifically, Adobe said Premiere Pro CS3, After Effects CS3 Professional, Encore CS3, and Soundbooth CS3 will each require small compatibility updates, which the company plans to release over its Adobe Updater mechanism for free this December. Meanwhile, Acrobat 8 Professional and Adobe Reader 8 will also require Leopard compatibility updates that are scheduled for release in January 2008.

"Adobe sets high standards of quality, stability, and reliability for our professional creative products, and we have worked closely with Apple to test Creative Suite 3 applications on both pre-release versions and the final shipping version of Mac OS X Leopard," the software maker wrote in Leopard compatibility FAQ document posted to its website. "While this testing showed that most CS3 applications perform well on Leopard (and that others run well but need updates for a few identified issues), we recognize that other issues may unexpectedly arise on any new operating system."

Still, Adobe said it's comfortable recommending that owners of all of its new Creative Suite 3 products install and run those products on Leopard ahead of the compatibility updates. "[O]ur testing shows that the overall experience on Mac OS X Leopard is stable and reliable and that customers will get more from running these leading Creative Suite 3 editions on Leopard than not," the company said.

In the published FAQ, Adobe also acknowledged that while some of its older Creative Suite 2 and Macromedia Studio 8 products may install and run on Mac OS X Leopard, they were designed, tested, and released to the public several years before the new operating system became available. Therefore, users may experience a variety of installation, stability, and reliability issues for which there is no resolution.

"Older versions of our creative software will not be updated to support Mac OS X Leopard," Adobe said. "For a complete overview of compatibility between Adobe creative applications and Mac OS X Leopard, see the chart [below]."

post #2 of 24
That's BS. Flash Player does need an update as bugs have already been found and acknowledged.
post #3 of 24
This is why I love Adobe. They've had access to builds of Leopard for two years. They could have easily begun updating their sofware for Leopard this past spring after receiving this year's WWDC build. But because they care so much about their customers, they don't even start making patches until after the operating system has been installed on it's customer's computers. Thanks, Adobe!
post #4 of 24
The latest Acrobat Professional Updater 8.1.1 breaks on Leopard saying something like unrecognized plugin modifications prevented the patch from completing.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

This is why I love Adobe. They've had access to builds of Leopard for two years. They could have easily begun updating their sofware for Leopard this past spring after receiving this year's WWDC build.

I guess they are taking the position: "Let us know when you are done with your new OS and we will take a look at what needs to be done on our end". They don't want to have to work on an unfinished version and end up breaking something else in the process. It really isn't that different than any other multi-vendor project like building a house for example. You wouldn't expect the painters to start until the roofing was done, otherwise they just get in each other's way.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I guess they are taking the position: "Let us know when you are done with your new OS and we will take a look at what needs to be done on our end". They don't want to have to work on an unfinished version and end up breaking something else in the process. It really isn't that different than any other multi-vendor project like building a house for example. You wouldn't expect the painters to start until the roofing was done, otherwise they just get in each other's way.

True - but you don't often sell the house and have folks move in before the windows and doors are fitted !!

Jon
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I guess they are taking the position: "Let us know when you are done with your new OS and we will take a look at what needs to be done on our end". They don't want to have to work on an unfinished version and end up breaking something else in the process. It really isn't that different than any other multi-vendor project like building a house for example. You wouldn't expect the painters to start until the roofing was done, otherwise they just get in each other's way.

Nonsense. Adobe most certainly could have done more work on compatibility before now. Waiting for the actual new OS release is NOT the usual way companies handle software development. Your analogy of building a house is a poor one and does not apply here. Adobe didn't have to wait for the actual release to plan and prepare for the changes.

It's become increasingly clear in recent years that Adobe does not value its relationship with Apple and the Mac platform. Perhaps they are unhappy with certain moves by Apple that threaten some of Adobe's business (e.g., Preview vs. Reader, the move away from Flash, etc.). In any case, Adobe has long ago lost whatever special relationship it once had with Apple, and now seems intent on treating the Mac platform as the ugly step-sister to Windoze.

Note to Adobe: stupid, stupid, stupid.
post #8 of 24
What will I do in Leopard with Acrobat!

Oh, wait... I will use Leopard's own built-in PDF editing abilities
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

What will I do in Leopard with Acrobat!

Oh, wait... I will use Leopard's own built-in PDF editing abilities

Clearly, you do not work in the publishing/pre-press industry. We need Acrobat and Distiller.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #10 of 24
They already have a compatibility list, meaning that they have been working on it prior to release of Leopard.

Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash work, that's their flagship product. You can already print and view PDF's so Acrobat isn't a big deal. I think it's more of them prioritizing which applications get fixed first.

Apple's "competing products" are not in the same class, they are cheaper alternatives for hobbyists meant to sell hardware. Most people can't afford Adobe's products, their actual competitor on the mac if anything is Gimp which so far I can't get to work in Leopard yet.

Has anyone actually reported what goes wrong in their apps on Leopard (aside from the Acrobat updater).
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jont-uk View Post

True - but you don't often sell the house and have folks move in before the windows and doors are fitted !!

Good point, however I don't think the end users or the shareholders in this case would stand for waiting another couple months for Adobe to complete the necessary updates before selling the new product.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by slicedbread View Post

Nonsense. Adobe most certainly could have done more work on compatibility before now. Waiting for the actual new OS release is NOT the usual way companies handle software development. Your analogy of building a house is a poor one and does not apply here. Adobe didn't have to wait for the actual release to plan and prepare for the changes.

It's become increasingly clear in recent years that Adobe does not value its relationship with Apple and the Mac platform. Perhaps they are unhappy with certain moves by Apple that threaten some of Adobe's business (e.g., Preview vs. Reader, the move away from Flash, etc.). In any case, Adobe has long ago lost whatever special relationship it once had with Apple, and now seems intent on treating the Mac platform as the ugly step-sister to Windoze.

Note to Adobe: stupid, stupid, stupid.


it's been like this for years. Windows has been getting the priority. even Quark has dragged their feet on Mac Os, favoring Windows as the primary system for publishing. and in PS CS3 the fading window effect is totally Vista-like. kind of shows where attention lies. it's like Adobe sees the Mac community as a small flaky outfit that needs to be serviced just to keep them shut up.

seems right now the main big corp that is keen on pursuing extensive future Apple development is Intel.
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghiangelo View Post

it's been like this for years. Windows has been getting the priority. even Quark has dragged their feet on Mac Os, favoring Windows as the primary system for publishing.

Windows is about the only hope Quark has left because inDesign is a much better product. I switched a couple years ago after about 20 years of Quark (once called Visionary).

It is worth noting that there are two distinct types of publishing. 1. Corporate publishing with it's strict management controls over the workflow of the entire publication such as a book, catalog or directory. Quark has entrench itself in this market. The other type of publishing, much more prevalent, is the magazine and brochure business which is where the freelance artists and creatives live. They prefer, by a wide majority, Mac and inDesign over Quark, primarily because of the seamless integration with Illustrator and Photoshop and of course OS X being more of an artists platform.

It is really remarkable how significant the transformation to inDesign has become in the DTP business in the last few years.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It is really remarkable how significant the transformation to inDesign has become in the DTP business in the last few years.

My wife has sworn by Quark for many years, though she also uses InDesign when necessary (with less personal skill).

With the latest version, Quark apparently works more like InDesign. She thought it was stupid for Quark to force her to relearn Quark (it will lose Quark customers too, right?), while at the same time making those customers more able to switch to InDesign. I certainly doubt that InDesign users will jump to Quark, since the integration with Photoshop (&CS3) is so important to them.
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by slicedbread View Post

Nonsense. Adobe most certainly could have done more work on compatibility before now. Waiting for the actual new OS release is NOT the usual way companies handle software development. Your analogy of building a house is a poor one and does not apply here. Adobe didn't have to wait for the actual release to plan and prepare for the changes.

Waiting for an OS to be finalized before fixing the software first is actually standard operating procedure for many software companies. Doubly so when you have such complex software and an unfinished OS where features might change without notice.

Adobe software had problems with Vista too, so your suggestions of unbalanced treatment of operating systems is unfounded in this case. When CS2 was the current Adobe product, there was no patch to Vista. To use Vista with Photoshop at all, you need to upgrade to CS3.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Clearly, you do not work in the publishing/pre-press industry. We need Acrobat and Distiller.

I was about to say the same thing. That PDF ability that comes with Leopard is AWESOME for PDFs you'll only be using. But for anything else... nothing beats Distiller.
Into the at, for.
Reply
Into the at, for.
Reply
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Windows is about the only hope Quark has left because inDesign is a much better product. I switched a couple years ago after about 20 years of Quark (once called Visionary).

It is worth noting that there are two distinct types of publishing. 1. Corporate publishing with it's strict management controls over the workflow of the entire publication such as a book, catalog or directory. Quark has entrench itself in this market. The other type of publishing, much more prevalent, is the magazine and brochure business which is where the freelance artists and creatives live. They prefer, by a wide majority, Mac and inDesign over Quark, primarily because of the seamless integration with Illustrator and Photoshop and of course OS X being more of an artists platform.

It is really remarkable how significant the transformation to inDesign has become in the DTP business in the last few years.

I was a Quark user only because Pagemaker SUCKED. Multi-Ad Creator isn't bad at all. But InDesign rules them all.

I use CS-2 at work.
Into the at, for.
Reply
Into the at, for.
Reply
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Waiting for an OS to be finalized before fixing the software first is actually standard operating procedure for many software companies. Doubly so when you have such complex software and an unfinished OS where features might change without notice.

What makes you so sure what is 'standard practice'?

Obviously Adobe had multiple options
1) do nothing tell Leopard is released
2) write test scripts but do nothing till Leopard's release, and start making changes
(2.5... start basic testing on prereleases)
3) test extensively before release with plans for possible changes - then test again on release, adjust the plan, and make the changes
(3.5 .... start basic recoding/changes on prerelease, but nothing final)
4) test extensively before release and make changes as required - then test again on release and change again

Obviously #4 will have some waste (but great for customers), and #1 is best for Adobe's time spent (but not so good for customers). I suspect they did #3.

edit: I think you are saying that they didn't do #5
5) test extensively, update their software, and release their update, then test again on Leopard release and change again.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ke^in View Post

I use CS-2 at work.

Any thoughts on CS2 on Leopard?

What I've read so far is several people saying it runs fine, but one person saying InDesign didn't run for them at all. However... I'm not finding much info (any forum/site recommendations?).

It also seems that that Adobe is saying it's fine to update to Leopard (with CS3) as the problems aren't significant at all. For example, one of the CS3 Acrobat errors is that it won't auto-update... so running an update before you upgrade to Leopard would be wise I guess.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

What makes you so sure what is 'standard practice'?

I didn't say standard practice at every company, just that many companies seem to do it that way. Many could still be a minority, but still problematic if you're trying to make the leap ASAP. If you're a pro (which is fairly likely if you legally own much of CS3), I don't think it makes sense to jump to Leopard with paying work without walking through the entire workflow with test work first. That because it could turn out to be a holdup at that's near the end because a certain feature doesn't work on your program.

Just taking a look at the number of Vista compatiblity complaints when it was first released. When I upgraded Tiger, it took a few months before all the software I had was compatible and working properly.

I don't know what number I'd say, other than for whatever reason, just not have an update right when a new OS is released. The exact reason or method isn't that important to me.
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Older versions of our creative software will not be updated to support Mac OS X Leopard," Adobe said.

I'm running CS2 on a bunch of dual G4 machines. InDesign and Photoshop are essential to our operation, so these machines won't be getting Leopard, which is a shame. I'd love to use the new Mail features, among other added benefits.

We'll upgrade our Mac Pro and Intel iMac to Leopard at the end of January 2008 when Adobe have upgraded the remaining CS3 apps. I hate to have to wait ...

post #22 of 24
I'm running Phoshop CS1 and Illustrator CS1 on my PowerBook G4 with Leopard. Working fine so far...
post #23 of 24
Can anyone tell me what *exactly* is wrong with CS3 Acrobat Pro in Leopard ? I hear all kind of messages, from 'unusuable' to 'works fine to me'.

Same story for After Effects CS3.
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by yama View Post

I'm running Phoshop CS1 and Illustrator CS1 on my PowerBook G4 with Leopard. Working fine so far...

This is good news. I may take the plunge and try Leopard on one of our older machines. Your report is heartening.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe to update some Creative Suite 3 apps for Leopard