While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.
While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.
I hear you, I did like whipping open elements to do something quick and easy, a LOT of the people I know that use PS would be fine with PSE, of course they're win users who didn't pay for their PS so that's another story.
It wasn't so simple as that though. There were many discussions about this in the last year. One issue is that Apple didn't bother to explain why a developer should have been transitioning to Xcode. Another issue is that Xcode was still an immature product for much of the time that Apple was (poorly) trying to convince devels to switch. It wasn't as good as it should have been to handle large projects, so it looked like a disincentive to switch when they already were using a mature development system.
Still, I agree, it was written on the wall and sooner or later, Adobe would have been in a difficult position. The sooner they began the transition on an imperfect xCode, the better they had chances to overcome its shortcomings.
With all the 68k days code still around, it was stricking everybody as urgent to rewrite some Adobe apps : they could have began that task much sooner ona per app basis, to avoid a transition on all CS apps at once…
What I think is that waiting for Vista techologies to be frozen was also really important for Adobe and the Intel transition was really convenient to justify the delays…
Also, while I agree Photoshop code was a mess to rewrite, Adobe had much more recent or easier apps to transition and that could have been done in far less than 20 monthes… Illustrator is said to have been rewritten in mach-O already in CS2 version and InDesign, ImageReady, Bridge and Version Cue are all pretty recent creations…
And, why Apple, who worked on Macromedia codebase for FCP and, later, third parties products like Motion, Logic Pro or Shake had much shorter developpement cycle than Adobe?
What about Dreamweaver which should be easily rewritten comparatively to Photoshop ?
Nah, Adobe waited to upgrade all apps at once to wait for Vista and to be sure to have a good enough incentive for frowning CS 2 users to upgrade another time.
? excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.
Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
I think it has some relation to "whetstone", a rock used to sharpen knives. I really don't know how that came about though, to sharpen one's appetites doesn't make much sense to me, but a lot of colloqualisms don't make sense.
i was an indesign beta tester on indesign 2 and we got regular updates to play with. what we were not told (though we should have worked it out) is that the file format for ID2 beta was not fixed. so the files we created in beta were not compatible with ID 2 when it came out.
i doubt adobe would do this with a public beta, but something to keep in mind...
It wasn't so simple as that though. There were many discussions about this in the last year. One issue is that Apple didn't bother to explain why a developer should have been transitioning to Xcode. Another issue is that Xcode was still an immature product for much of the time that Apple was (poorly) trying to convince devels to switch. It wasn't as good as it should have been to handle large projects, so it looked like a disincentive to switch when they already were using a mature development system.
In theory, only in so far as letting possible Mac Pro customers know it's OK to upgrade. Don't get your hopes up for the "Adobe is moving to a public beta process" thing. If a public beta happens, this is a special set of circumstances driven by a new CPU platform. It will by definition be this way only once. Next time everyone will already have native MacIntel stuff (the stuff we're waiting for now), right? So there will be no need at that time, to assure anyone that a Macintel version is in the works. They'll already own a Macintel version.
As for Light Room (in case anyone is going to cite that as proof of some larger shift in thinking at Adobe), there are obvious reasons surrounding that application's public beta, having mostly to do with Aperture (in most people's opinion). Adobe probably wants people to understand -in that niche market- that Apple's product is not the only game in town, to the extent that even their unfinished product is highly usable and worth considering. And remember well: the fact that public betas sometimes exist, doesn't mean a more robust private beta program isn't going on at the same time, with that group ultimately deciding on the features, style of implementation, etc. I am not a part of such a program, but does anyone really think there have only been 4 builds of LightRoom since the public program was announced? My hunch is version 2 will not have a public beta, but I'm open to wagers of course.
There are two kinds of public betas. One is to float a brand new concept to the public and see if theyrespond favorably before proceeding further with feature development... another is to let a specific segment of the public know that a long-awaited product is coming along nicely, and will eventually be available. You decide what camp a possible CS3-related beta app falls into.
Quote:
With the code completely written for Intel
PPC and Intel are on equal footing now and for a couple years at least, for all big name developers. The percentage of MacIntel users as a part of the total Mac user base is still much smaller than the PPC segment. It would be bad business for any developer to start ignoring PPC-related performance improvements and stability in their apps, at this early stage. Eventually PPC will fall by the wayside but it'll be a while.
Quote:
using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing.
You can take what I'm saying or leave it, but this kind of thinking makes Mac rumor sites easy targets for ridicule. The *only* risk for closed-to-the-public testing -and only during unusually long development cycles- is that it's difficult to keep customers informed and re-assured that good stuff is on the way. Seriously... I'm not making this up.
Quote:
If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money.
Not trying to be an a-hole, but this is not sound reasoning on your part. I don't know your personal history but it seems like you've never been a part of a closed beta group for any well known software product. Developers often choose internal testers from a wide range of professions and hardware profiles (and therefore wide range of needs) to beta test their software. Roughly anywhere from 100 to 300 non-employee-testers, depending on the developer and the product. Most operate with the intention of replacing their everyday software with the beta-ware (assuming it's truly beta and not alpha-ware) and really hammering on it for many hours each week, reporting bugs, discussing features, etc. It's actually a gigantic volume of feedback that comes from even 100 testers, especially over a period of many months. There are people whose job it is simply to manage that feedback and channel it one way or another.
Where invite-only beta programs go, testers take it very seriously and are very picky in many cases.
For most complex software products, far more bugs are found from one release to the next, than are ever fixed in a given release. That's true of operating systems too. Look at OS X and all the dot releases. You think that's a small beta demographic? No way! Apple has a huge number of beta testers for their OS, and as such they couldn't possibly wait till every annoying bug was fixed before releasing. They get the worst offenders, freeze the UI for release, tweak some more and let it out there. Otherwise development would be never-ending. And in fact it IS never-ending, it just doesn't seem that way from the perspective of boxed products. Development goes on 365 pretty much, for any big-name product you use.
The point I'm trying to make is this: the notion that invite-only testers somehow are prone to missing important things the public wouldn't, or that the public would find everything that's serious, is very naive. And in fact most people who download and use public betas are pretty useless as testers; they're only excited to see the new stuff and once they have they forget about it because it's no longer news. Just like rumors. Once one has been verified, no one cares anymore.
Quote:
But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake
No developer would tie a public beta to prior registered users if the purpose is to get new users as well as allay the fears of existing ones.
Quote:
But Adobe also needs to remember that many of us use one application almost exclusively. We don't like it when Adobe tries to play games and draw us into buying a suite of products that we have little use for. We like it even less when they treat us as second class citizens.
Here's what I can tell you; I've tested software for large, well known commercial developers in the past. Among those developers, nearly all were conscientious individuals in how they approach their jobs. They truly care about users' opinions and solicit them often; they all want to make their product better - constantly. They work very long hours, they listen carefully (and often repeatedly) to comments made about what works, what doesn't, what's fair, what's not, what's logical, what's crazy... and they take more shit (often undeserved) than you might guess. Some testers, despite the invite status, seem to think carrying an attitude into the room is not a big deal. Most are very gracious however.
Remember Adobe is in business so their employees can make money just like you or me. And if we were developing multiple software products (you and I), we too would consider bundling them in different ways and charging different amounts from one release to the next until we found a sweet spot. And FWIW for every Adobe user out there that only uses one app (solely), there are -I would wager at least 5- who use multiple apps, every day. 5-to-1 IOW. Photoshop and InDesign, Illustrator and InDesign, InDesign and Acrobat, Illustrator and GoLive (or now Dreamweaver). The permutations are endless and all very valid (and common if you extrapolate out to millions of users).
Adobe isn't' playing games with anyone and if you feel like a second class citizen because Adobe follows their business plan and not yours, well, that's kind of naive too don't you think? All I know is, when I look at all the things I can do with the software Adobe and Apple and OmniGroup and a dozen others make, I don't feel too bad about giving them my hard-earned money because quite frankly trying to do my job without their software would be hellish at best. Imagine a world where things like MS Publisher or Paint were your best friends.... *shudder*.
Quote:
Adobe should also offer individual beta packages for the registered owners of each of their major products. ...
Why? What benefit does this provide, in return for all the work that's required to set things up specifically for registered owners? If they were to release all the products as public betas (instead of one or two let's pretend), why wouldn't they simply have a multi-part suite download with beta serial numbers, and let users install as many or as few as they want, without any sort of administration to go along with it?
Anyway, I think people like yourself spend way too much time over-analyzing rumors of the products you like, when 98% of those rumors are basically fabricated from nothing. Use the software you got to good ends, and if a beta comes out, well then lucky us. But given the publicly announced quarter of release for the suite, I wouldn't expect any potential public betas to be in 100% finished form or as stable as a boxed product. Nor would I expect to get multiple builds the way we have with LightRoom (that's a 1.0 product remember).
By breaking the old IDEs, Apple forced the Big Software Vendors to take a long hard look at their code base. Hopefully this will/should translate in better performance too.
Very interesting. Steve Jobs is the man. I never saw that side of things.
While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.
*snicker* *snicker* Maybe you'd like a PC and Windows98 to go along with your PS Elements? muaha ha hh h ahah haha h hah you "home" and "hobby" graphic peons.....!!!
Side note: pro creative/ graphics is a really cutthroat and sometimes very ego-driven environment. But we all knew that. I hacked my way in, and was devastated by what I saw. \ But there are some decent boutique Mac-driven friendly creative pro shops (web/ graphic/ ad design services, etc) out there.
Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
Nah, no worries, it's a common mistake among English speakers, precisely because yes, in can make sense that "to wet someone's appetite" is to make someone salivate, metaphorically or literally. I actually forgot about it in some way if you had not brought it up (and then got, unfortunately, p*wnd). Whet is the proper word to use... although I'd bet you half of anyone in high school in English speaking countries today would think Wet is the word to use.
A public beta of CS3 makes a lot of sense. With the code completely written for Intel using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing. If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money. Not what Adobe wants.
Precisely. There's too much riding on CS3 and remember, this will be the first major lovechild of the Adobe-Macromedia sexfest (well, in terms of code) 8). As some have pointed out, CS3 coincides with the 80% (very rough) Windows user base ready to move to XP2 from 2000 or Vista from XP2 -- over the next year and a half, and coincides with the 20% Mac user base clawing in the air for UniversalBinaries and ready to move to 10.4 or 10.5 in the next year and a half. Alongside Acrobat8 and several other Adobe products, it needs to get CS3 solid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake that's almost as great...
This would be highly tragic as they want a whole new generation of up-and-coming users of the software who may have been on Corel or Gimp or other stuff that are "getting serious" to come onboard the CS train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
That's why I hope the rumors that there'll be several versions of CS3 prove true. I have no interest in paying for a Dreamweaver upgrade or Flash products. And if Adobe doesn't offer the right package for my purposes, I'm likely to buy less rather than more.
Actually, you're likely to buy more rather than less, for most people. They'll have several packages and several upgrade pricing packages, etc. But I can guaran-fracking-tee you there'll be one or two programs you *don't quite need*. I think for profit's sake they will certainly not offer individual purchases and do the old "Creative Suite Premium" "Creative Suite Web" "Creative Suite Basic" etc...
....which is referenced internally under the code-named "Banana Split."...
hahahaha. Great name
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... Dreamweaver ... will replace GoLive ... Fireworks will take on the role of ImageReady ...
Makes good sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Munster's checks also indicate a strong adoption rate for Creative Suite 3.0 following its release, which he believes will help drive Mac sales. In a poll conducted during the September Photoshop World conference, 87 percent of graphics professionals told the analyst that there is a greater than 50 percent likelihood they will purchase the software bundle within 12 months of its release.
"The bottom line is that there is significant pent-up demand for Intel-based Macs among the Adobe creative pro community," Munster said. "Adobe creative pro customers cannot run their Adobe apps at full effiency on an Intel-based Mac until Creative Suite 3.0 is released, so many are waiting until that time to upgrade their machines."
I normally like Gene Munster but he's putting a bit of a heavy cross-court topspin on this (to pull out a tennis analogy from thin air). He's saying that 87% of those polled are 50% or more likely to upgrade to CS3. However, this is Photoshop World, so what is the PC-Mac user breakdown of that? 50-50?
Also, the Mac Pro and iMac market as for graphic/ web design pros, not video/ composite/ motion graphics pros, is fairly small-ish. Like 300,000 units per quarter? My brain has melted with my consecutive posts (thanks for bearing with me), but the point I'm trying to make is yes, there is pent up demand, but the Mac - CS3 potential profits and unit sales for Apple is slimmer than the analysts are painting. Be warned, shareholders.
One more post... I swear it's the last in the row... You can bet your bottom dollar once the public beta of CS3 Universal + XP2/Vista is out, analysts will be all over "increased Mac Pro and iMac sales!!! Woooooooooo" and echoing each other worse than that canyon in Mars that's like 10x deeper/ more canyon-ey than the Grand Canyon.
Does having native software even matter now? I remember some seeing some astonishing benchmark results when the 10.4.8 update came out. I think a Mac Pro running PPC software ran the software only 10% slower than a G5 Quad. I don't remember seeing compatibility complaints with 10.4.8.
Comments
Interesting spelling.
whet |(h)wet| |(h)w?t| |w?t|
verb ( whetted |(h)w?d?d|, whetting |(h)w?d??|) [ trans. ]
? excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.
Owned!
edit: damnit I didn't read till the end of the thread, someone beat me to it!
2) Apple had been recommending people to move to Xcode Tools for many, many years.
Exactly.
While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.
I hear you, I did like whipping open elements to do something quick and easy, a LOT of the people I know that use PS would be fine with PSE, of course they're win users who didn't pay for their PS so that's another story.
Exactly.
It wasn't so simple as that though. There were many discussions about this in the last year. One issue is that Apple didn't bother to explain why a developer should have been transitioning to Xcode. Another issue is that Xcode was still an immature product for much of the time that Apple was (poorly) trying to convince devels to switch. It wasn't as good as it should have been to handle large projects, so it looked like a disincentive to switch when they already were using a mature development system.
With all the 68k days code still around, it was stricking everybody as urgent to rewrite some Adobe apps : they could have began that task much sooner ona per app basis, to avoid a transition on all CS apps at once…
What I think is that waiting for Vista techologies to be frozen was also really important for Adobe and the Intel transition was really convenient to justify the delays…
Also, while I agree Photoshop code was a mess to rewrite, Adobe had much more recent or easier apps to transition and that could have been done in far less than 20 monthes… Illustrator is said to have been rewritten in mach-O already in CS2 version and InDesign, ImageReady, Bridge and Version Cue are all pretty recent creations…
And, why Apple, who worked on Macromedia codebase for FCP and, later, third parties products like Motion, Logic Pro or Shake had much shorter developpement cycle than Adobe?
What about Dreamweaver which should be easily rewritten comparatively to Photoshop ?
Nah, Adobe waited to upgrade all apps at once to wait for Vista and to be sure to have a good enough incentive for frowning CS 2 users to upgrade another time.
whet |(h)wet| |(h)w?t| |w?t|
verb ( whetted |(h)w?d?d|, whetting |(h)w?d??|) [ trans. ]
? excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.
Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
I think it has some relation to "whetstone", a rock used to sharpen knives. I really don't know how that came about though, to sharpen one's appetites doesn't make much sense to me, but a lot of colloqualisms don't make sense.
i was an indesign beta tester on indesign 2 and we got regular updates to play with. what we were not told (though we should have worked it out) is that the file format for ID2 beta was not fixed. so the files we created in beta were not compatible with ID 2 when it came out.
i doubt adobe would do this with a public beta, but something to keep in mind...
They could water mark them.
It wasn't so simple as that though. There were many discussions about this in the last year. One issue is that Apple didn't bother to explain why a developer should have been transitioning to Xcode. Another issue is that Xcode was still an immature product for much of the time that Apple was (poorly) trying to convince devels to switch. It wasn't as good as it should have been to handle large projects, so it looked like a disincentive to switch when they already were using a mature development system.
Cut the bullshit, JeffDM. Please.
Cut the bullshit, JeffDM. Please.
I'm not making things up. This is all information I gleaned from discussions on these very forums.
A public beta of CS3 makes a lot of sense.
In theory, only in so far as letting possible Mac Pro customers know it's OK to upgrade. Don't get your hopes up for the "Adobe is moving to a public beta process" thing. If a public beta happens, this is a special set of circumstances driven by a new CPU platform. It will by definition be this way only once. Next time everyone will already have native MacIntel stuff (the stuff we're waiting for now), right? So there will be no need at that time, to assure anyone that a Macintel version is in the works. They'll already own a Macintel version.
As for Light Room (in case anyone is going to cite that as proof of some larger shift in thinking at Adobe), there are obvious reasons surrounding that application's public beta, having mostly to do with Aperture (in most people's opinion). Adobe probably wants people to understand -in that niche market- that Apple's product is not the only game in town, to the extent that even their unfinished product is highly usable and worth considering. And remember well: the fact that public betas sometimes exist, doesn't mean a more robust private beta program isn't going on at the same time, with that group ultimately deciding on the features, style of implementation, etc. I am not a part of such a program, but does anyone really think there have only been 4 builds of LightRoom since the public program was announced?
There are two kinds of public betas. One is to float a brand new concept to the public and see if theyrespond favorably before proceeding further with feature development... another is to let a specific segment of the public know that a long-awaited product is coming along nicely, and will eventually be available. You decide what camp a possible CS3-related beta app falls into.
With the code completely written for Intel
PPC and Intel are on equal footing now and for a couple years at least, for all big name developers. The percentage of MacIntel users as a part of the total Mac user base is still much smaller than the PPC segment. It would be bad business for any developer to start ignoring PPC-related performance improvements and stability in their apps, at this early stage. Eventually PPC will fall by the wayside but it'll be a while.
using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing.
You can take what I'm saying or leave it, but this kind of thinking makes Mac rumor sites easy targets for ridicule. The *only* risk for closed-to-the-public testing -and only during unusually long development cycles- is that it's difficult to keep customers informed and re-assured that good stuff is on the way. Seriously... I'm not making this up.
If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money.
Not trying to be an a-hole, but this is not sound reasoning on your part. I don't know your personal history but it seems like you've never been a part of a closed beta group for any well known software product. Developers often choose internal testers from a wide range of professions and hardware profiles (and therefore wide range of needs) to beta test their software. Roughly anywhere from 100 to 300 non-employee-testers, depending on the developer and the product. Most operate with the intention of replacing their everyday software with the beta-ware (assuming it's truly beta and not alpha-ware) and really hammering on it for many hours each week, reporting bugs, discussing features, etc. It's actually a gigantic volume of feedback that comes from even 100 testers, especially over a period of many months. There are people whose job it is simply to manage that feedback and channel it one way or another.
Where invite-only beta programs go, testers take it very seriously and are very picky in many cases.
For most complex software products, far more bugs are found from one release to the next, than are ever fixed in a given release. That's true of operating systems too. Look at OS X and all the dot releases. You think that's a small beta demographic? No way! Apple has a huge number of beta testers for their OS, and as such they couldn't possibly wait till every annoying bug was fixed before releasing. They get the worst offenders, freeze the UI for release, tweak some more and let it out there. Otherwise development would be never-ending. And in fact it IS never-ending, it just doesn't seem that way from the perspective of boxed products. Development goes on 365 pretty much, for any big-name product you use.
The point I'm trying to make is this: the notion that invite-only testers somehow are prone to missing important things the public wouldn't, or that the public would find everything that's serious, is very naive. And in fact most people who download and use public betas are pretty useless as testers; they're only excited to see the new stuff and once they have they forget about it because it's no longer news. Just like rumors. Once one has been verified, no one cares anymore.
But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake
No developer would tie a public beta to prior registered users if the purpose is to get new users as well as allay the fears of existing ones.
But Adobe also needs to remember that many of us use one application almost exclusively. We don't like it when Adobe tries to play games and draw us into buying a suite of products that we have little use for. We like it even less when they treat us as second class citizens.
Here's what I can tell you; I've tested software for large, well known commercial developers in the past. Among those developers, nearly all were conscientious individuals in how they approach their jobs. They truly care about users' opinions and solicit them often; they all want to make their product better - constantly. They work very long hours, they listen carefully (and often repeatedly) to comments made about what works, what doesn't, what's fair, what's not, what's logical, what's crazy... and they take more shit (often undeserved) than you might guess. Some testers, despite the invite status, seem to think carrying an attitude into the room is not a big deal. Most are very gracious however.
Remember Adobe is in business so their employees can make money just like you or me. And if we were developing multiple software products (you and I), we too would consider bundling them in different ways and charging different amounts from one release to the next until we found a sweet spot. And FWIW for every Adobe user out there that only uses one app (solely), there are -I would wager at least 5- who use multiple apps, every day. 5-to-1 IOW. Photoshop and InDesign, Illustrator and InDesign, InDesign and Acrobat, Illustrator and GoLive (or now Dreamweaver). The permutations are endless and all very valid (and common if you extrapolate out to millions of users).
Adobe isn't' playing games with anyone and if you feel like a second class citizen because Adobe follows their business plan and not yours, well, that's kind of naive too don't you think? All I know is, when I look at all the things I can do with the software Adobe and Apple and OmniGroup and a dozen others make, I don't feel too bad about giving them my hard-earned money because quite frankly trying to do my job without their software would be hellish at best. Imagine a world where things like MS Publisher or Paint were your best friends.... *shudder*.
Adobe should also offer individual beta packages for the registered owners of each of their major products. ...
Why? What benefit does this provide, in return for all the work that's required to set things up specifically for registered owners? If they were to release all the products as public betas (instead of one or two let's pretend), why wouldn't they simply have a multi-part suite download with beta serial numbers, and let users install as many or as few as they want, without any sort of administration to go along with it?
Anyway, I think people like yourself spend way too much time over-analyzing rumors of the products you like, when 98% of those rumors are basically fabricated from nothing. Use the software you got to good ends, and if a beta comes out, well then lucky us. But given the publicly announced quarter of release for the suite, I wouldn't expect any potential public betas to be in 100% finished form or as stable as a boxed product. Nor would I expect to get multiple builds the way we have with LightRoom (that's a 1.0 product remember).
Happy holidays.
-Moogs
By breaking the old IDEs, Apple forced the Big Software Vendors to take a long hard look at their code base. Hopefully this will/should translate in better performance too.
Very interesting. Steve Jobs is the man.
While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.
*snicker* *snicker* Maybe you'd like a PC and Windows98 to go along with your PS Elements?
Side note: pro creative/ graphics is a really cutthroat and sometimes very ego-driven environment. But we all knew that. I hacked my way in, and was devastated by what I saw.
Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
Nah, no worries, it's a common mistake among English speakers, precisely because yes, in can make sense that "to wet someone's appetite" is to make someone salivate, metaphorically or literally. I actually forgot about it in some way if you had not brought it up (and then got, unfortunately, p*wnd). Whet is the proper word to use... although I'd bet you half of anyone in high school in English speaking countries today would think Wet is the word to use.
Happy holidays.
-Moogs
You've been away too long, you're too nice.
A public beta of CS3 makes a lot of sense. With the code completely written for Intel using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing. If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money. Not what Adobe wants.
Precisely. There's too much riding on CS3 and remember, this will be the first major lovechild of the Adobe-Macromedia sexfest (well, in terms of code) 8). As some have pointed out, CS3 coincides with the 80% (very rough) Windows user base ready to move to XP2 from 2000 or Vista from XP2 -- over the next year and a half, and coincides with the 20% Mac user base clawing in the air for UniversalBinaries and ready to move to 10.4 or 10.5 in the next year and a half. Alongside Acrobat8 and several other Adobe products, it needs to get CS3 solid.
But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake that's almost as great...
This would be highly tragic as they want a whole new generation of up-and-coming users of the software who may have been on Corel or Gimp or other stuff that are "getting serious" to come onboard the CS train.
That's why I hope the rumors that there'll be several versions of CS3 prove true. I have no interest in paying for a Dreamweaver upgrade or Flash products. And if Adobe doesn't offer the right package for my purposes, I'm likely to buy less rather than more.
Actually, you're likely to buy more rather than less, for most people. They'll have several packages and several upgrade pricing packages, etc. But I can guaran-fracking-tee you there'll be one or two programs you *don't quite need*. I think for profit's sake they will certainly not offer individual purchases and do the old "Creative Suite Premium" "Creative Suite Web" "Creative Suite Basic" etc...
....which is referenced internally under the code-named "Banana Split."...
hahahaha. Great name
... Dreamweaver ... will replace GoLive ... Fireworks will take on the role of ImageReady ...
Makes good sense.
Munster's checks also indicate a strong adoption rate for Creative Suite 3.0 following its release, which he believes will help drive Mac sales. In a poll conducted during the September Photoshop World conference, 87 percent of graphics professionals told the analyst that there is a greater than 50 percent likelihood they will purchase the software bundle within 12 months of its release.
"The bottom line is that there is significant pent-up demand for Intel-based Macs among the Adobe creative pro community," Munster said. "Adobe creative pro customers cannot run their Adobe apps at full effiency on an Intel-based Mac until Creative Suite 3.0 is released, so many are waiting until that time to upgrade their machines."
I normally like Gene Munster but he's putting a bit of a heavy cross-court topspin on this (to pull out a tennis analogy from thin air). He's saying that 87% of those polled are 50% or more likely to upgrade to CS3. However, this is Photoshop World, so what is the PC-Mac user breakdown of that? 50-50?
Also, the Mac Pro and iMac market as for graphic/ web design pros, not video/ composite/ motion graphics pros, is fairly small-ish. Like 300,000 units per quarter? My brain has melted with my consecutive posts (thanks for bearing with me), but the point I'm trying to make is yes, there is pent up demand, but the Mac - CS3 potential profits and unit sales for Apple is slimmer than the analysts are painting. Be warned, shareholders.