Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 97
    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!
  • Reply 22 of 97
    vasvas Posts: 16member
    Delay in Windows Vista = delay in CS3.
  • Reply 23 of 97
    rawheadrawhead Posts: 89member
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 97
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Maybe CS3 will only work with Mac OS X 10.5 and Windows Vista. Same time frame for both releases apparently.
  • Reply 25 of 97
    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$$.
  • Reply 26 of 97
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    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.
  • Reply 27 of 97
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 97
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    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.
  • Reply 29 of 97
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    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
  • Reply 30 of 97
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    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.
  • Reply 31 of 97
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 97
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    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.
  • Reply 33 of 97
    4fx4fx Posts: 258member
    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...
  • Reply 34 of 97
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 97
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    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.
  • Reply 36 of 97
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    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.
  • Reply 37 of 97
    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.
  • Reply 38 of 97
    nauticalnautical Posts: 109member
    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!
  • Reply 39 of 97
    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 me?it 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.
  • Reply 40 of 97
    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.




    If you are determined to torture yourself, why not do the job correctly and use MS Publisher?



    Sure, PS has a type engine, but what about things like style sheets, irregularly shaped text blocks, runarounds for inset photos, etc.? You could spend all day doing the above with workarounds, or you could just use Illustrator if you are determined to avoid Quark at all costs (of course the printer is likely to take your EPS, TIFF, DCS, or whatever and stick it in a Quark file for imposition and outputting anyway).
Sign In or Register to comment.