Unless I missed something, all the Adobe apps that were already available in PowerPC versions will still be available in PowerPC versions in CS3. The only Intel-only apps will be the new Mac versions of Premiere, Soundbooth, and Encore. G5 users will probably be content to stick with Final Cut Studio; I'm very skeptical that Adobe will be able to come close to Apple's efforts with those apps, but hey - competition is not a bad thing.
The color flows don't serve a purpose to inform the prospective buyer what type of market this software is used within.
I can't think of any way of marking or coloring it such that it would, and not look weird. Does Apple have such a system for their software? At the moment, consumer Apple apps are in white boxes, pro is black, with some icon/logo to suggest the type of app, but Apple's pro apps don't cross industry lines the ways Adobe's does.
"It's a pretty sound business strategy on their part... the people for whom the extra performance of an Intel Mac are worth it are their primary customers..."
I totally disagree. The professional design community is and has always been (generally speaking) among the last to embrace any new technology. Hell, a significant percentage of the designers out there are still using Quark 4! The mere thought of giving up Classic mode would be enough to give many designers a heart attack!
My guess is that a very high percentage of pro designers are running and will continue to run PowerPC-based Macs for some years to come.
Upgrade is when you replace a lesser version that you already own with a better version. Upsell is when you intend to buy one thing, say PS CS3, but the salesman tries to convince you that you need something that's more expensive, such as the extended version of PS CS3. Both are probably upgrades from whatever image software you use, but the extended version is the upsell of the standard version.
"It's a pretty sound business strategy on their part... the people for whom the extra performance of an Intel Mac are worth it are their primary customers..."
I totally disagree. The professional design community is and has always been (generally speaking) among the last to embrace any new technology. Hell, a significant percentage of the designers out there are still using Quark 4! The mere thought of giving up Classic mode would be enough to give many designers a heart attack!
My guess is that a very high percentage of pro designers are running and will continue to run PowerPC-based Macs for some years to come.
I agree with you 100%. The reason is simply this: most designers are loathe to shell out money on hardware and software upgrade because most of their business is highly sensitive to price competition and business is usually cyclical. There can be "dry" spots that go for months. Another thing, service bureaus and in-house production departments will seldom upgrade their equipment for years after revised software has been released because they stick with what works.
As some who writes and edits books in InDesign, I'd like to offer Adobe thanks for the new long document features. I've got a book in progress that was designed assuming they would add running headers and footers. They did not disappoint
I'm not quite sure what "synchronized master pages" are. A Google search turned up absolutely no hits. But if it's what I think it is, then more thanks are in order. It'll mean that I can tell InDesign to automatically apply a chapter master page to every page with a chapter heading style. That'll save a lot of hassle.
Unfortunately, there wasn't any mention of the two other major pains of doing books in InDesign. First, while magazines and newspapers usually have their length fixed in advance, books have to grow or shrink as they're edited and proofed. I saw nothing about the new InDesign being smart enough make the page count fit the text length (as in FrameMaker). Second, all InDesign users need a way to break multi-column text for a single column heading and then return to multi-column text in the same text frame. Currently, we face the misery of ending a multi-column text frame, adding a single-column frame for the heading, and then creating yet another multicolumn frame--all of which have to be adjusted when the text length changes. Number of columns should be an attribute of a paragraph and not of the frame, again like FrameMaker, the preeminent long document application. Ditto the feature of hanging quote marks into margins. Make in a paragraph feature rather than a story/frame feature and add sub/superscripts to the hanging. They're as tiny as quotes and look just as bad.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what Adobe is putting into the Notes menu? To see it, check out the aquoLIFE screenshot in Amazon Canada's description of InDesign.
It may just be a full-featured way to add editorial notes to text, displaying them or not. But that hardly seems worth its own first-level menu. That would fit easily under the View menu. My hope is that InDesign is now clever enough to take input from multiple Acrobat Reader reviews, taking them from the returned PDF files and showing them in InDesign where they are in the PDF file. No more looking back and forth between Reader and InDesign. No more paging here and there. But that's such a marvelously useful feature, I'd think Adobe would be trumpting it as loudly as possible. Correctly a long and complex book with that new feature would save hours of work.
Finally, I've seen the new user interface demoed with the Photoshop beta and love it. Adobe is getting rid of palette clutter, my #1 gripe with CS2.
Presumably Apple knew and knows the CS3 release date. What impact and hints could this give of Leopard's release date? If Leopard's GUI is new wont CS3 for Mac need to be changed too?
Freehand, GoLive? man why get rid of 2 outstanding programs that have a HUGH following!
This is a first for me ? I wish the government had said that Adobe had to sell any programs that MM was selling them, that Adobe already had a version of i.e., Freehand / Illustrator - GoLive / Dreamweaver
It seems like a very good business move ; buy the #1 - #2 (depending on the version) of software and bury it. Now you have the #1 app's in all catagories and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
You can't make an application that looks like Freehand / GoLive - acts like Freehand / GoLive, - feels like Freehand / GoLive, cuz if it looks like, feels like, acts like ? then it is, and you'll be in deep shit with Adboe ? Just seems like the wrong thing happended here
It's a safe bet, that if MicroSoft had purchased MM, the government would have stepped in, and told them to sell-off and competing applications? the one time I wish MS had done something.
Unless I missed something, all the Adobe apps that were already available in PowerPC versions will still be available in PowerPC versions in CS3. The only Intel-only apps will be the new Mac versions of Premiere, Soundbooth, and Encore. G5 users will probably be content to stick with Final Cut Studio; I'm very skeptical that Adobe will be able to come close to Apple's efforts with those apps, but hey - competition is not a bad thing.
Of course that's the way it is. But, for some reason, people get all up in arms because someone said "We're bringing such-and-such back to the Mac" and think Adobe's going to go through all the trouble to build two whole sets of code for them. Sure, all the standard code should work on both platforms, but its the optimized code, tied to the chip and its vector processing units that all need separate bases (and, in theory, the intel base should be the same code as what's on windows).
And why should they waste the money on that, when they probably don't know if anyone wants the stuff to begin with. Just to make Mac users happy? Ha! We are talking Adobe here...
Then again, this is also what happens when people don't listen to the pragmatists out there. People like myself, who saw how easy it was to build the universal binary (hmm, just check a box, huh?) but also said "Hey, sure, they can do it. But there's nothing in XCode that forces them to do it. What happens when people, including apple, start releasing intel-only software". But no one listened...
Comments
The color flows don't serve a purpose to inform the prospective buyer what type of market this software is used within.
I can't think of any way of marking or coloring it such that it would, and not look weird. Does Apple have such a system for their software? At the moment, consumer Apple apps are in white boxes, pro is black, with some icon/logo to suggest the type of app, but Apple's pro apps don't cross industry lines the ways Adobe's does.
I totally disagree. The professional design community is and has always been (generally speaking) among the last to embrace any new technology. Hell, a significant percentage of the designers out there are still using Quark 4! The mere thought of giving up Classic mode would be enough to give many designers a heart attack!
My guess is that a very high percentage of pro designers are running and will continue to run PowerPC-based Macs for some years to come.
Whats the difference between upsell and upgrade?
Upgrade is when you replace a lesser version that you already own with a better version. Upsell is when you intend to buy one thing, say PS CS3, but the salesman tries to convince you that you need something that's more expensive, such as the extended version of PS CS3. Both are probably upgrades from whatever image software you use, but the extended version is the upsell of the standard version.
"It's a pretty sound business strategy on their part... the people for whom the extra performance of an Intel Mac are worth it are their primary customers..."
I totally disagree. The professional design community is and has always been (generally speaking) among the last to embrace any new technology. Hell, a significant percentage of the designers out there are still using Quark 4! The mere thought of giving up Classic mode would be enough to give many designers a heart attack!
My guess is that a very high percentage of pro designers are running and will continue to run PowerPC-based Macs for some years to come.
I agree with you 100%. The reason is simply this: most designers are loathe to shell out money on hardware and software upgrade because most of their business is highly sensitive to price competition and business is usually cyclical. There can be "dry" spots that go for months. Another thing, service bureaus and in-house production departments will seldom upgrade their equipment for years after revised software has been released because they stick with what works.
I'm not quite sure what "synchronized master pages" are. A Google search turned up absolutely no hits. But if it's what I think it is, then more thanks are in order. It'll mean that I can tell InDesign to automatically apply a chapter master page to every page with a chapter heading style. That'll save a lot of hassle.
Unfortunately, there wasn't any mention of the two other major pains of doing books in InDesign. First, while magazines and newspapers usually have their length fixed in advance, books have to grow or shrink as they're edited and proofed. I saw nothing about the new InDesign being smart enough make the page count fit the text length (as in FrameMaker). Second, all InDesign users need a way to break multi-column text for a single column heading and then return to multi-column text in the same text frame. Currently, we face the misery of ending a multi-column text frame, adding a single-column frame for the heading, and then creating yet another multicolumn frame--all of which have to be adjusted when the text length changes. Number of columns should be an attribute of a paragraph and not of the frame, again like FrameMaker, the preeminent long document application. Ditto the feature of hanging quote marks into margins. Make in a paragraph feature rather than a story/frame feature and add sub/superscripts to the hanging. They're as tiny as quotes and look just as bad.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what Adobe is putting into the Notes menu? To see it, check out the aquoLIFE screenshot in Amazon Canada's description of InDesign.
http://www.amazon.ca/17510933-Adobe-...874398&sr=1-93
It may just be a full-featured way to add editorial notes to text, displaying them or not. But that hardly seems worth its own first-level menu. That would fit easily under the View menu. My hope is that InDesign is now clever enough to take input from multiple Acrobat Reader reviews, taking them from the returned PDF files and showing them in InDesign where they are in the PDF file. No more looking back and forth between Reader and InDesign. No more paging here and there. But that's such a marvelously useful feature, I'd think Adobe would be trumpting it as loudly as possible. Correctly a long and complex book with that new feature would save hours of work.
Finally, I've seen the new user interface demoed with the Photoshop beta and love it. Adobe is getting rid of palette clutter, my #1 gripe with CS2.
--Michael W. Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien
On another note, Canadians rule!
It doesn't matter whether it's Amazon Canada or Time Canada, all your secrets belong to us!
Owning both CS2 and Studio 8 bundles (AND AE7, for that) does not give me a sweat upgrade path. I pay as much as people owning only one of those.
This to me is completely unfair. I have payed for these licences already.
But an even bigger blow is the PPC alienation. What is THAT?
As a professional designer, I cannot live without Adobe software. A lot of people are in the same boat as me. Adobe, again, misuses their position.
I hate it. I realy do.
Mark
ok, so what I feared is true.
Owning both CS2 and Studio 8 bundles (AND AE7, for that) does not give me a sweat upgrade path. I pay as much as people owning only one of those.
This to me is completely unfair. I have payed for these licences already.
But an even bigger blow is the PPC alienation. What is THAT?
As a professional designer, I cannot live without Adobe software. A lot of people are in the same boat as me. Adobe, again, misuses their position.
I hate it. I realy do.
Mark
I could be wrong but only the software that was windows only and (re)introduced to the Mac-platform is Intel native,
everything else is PPC compliant.
I'll probably go for an Adobe CS3 Design Premium upgrade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCs2lu7KoOk
I didn't see any upgrade prices. Did anyone else see anything on this?
Try this: http://images.macrumors.com/article/...adepricing.png
The box designs are not HORRIBLE, but they look sort of cheap. They remind me of all of those early website templates that were WAY overdone.
They look like as if Adobe was bought by Corel.
This is a first for me ? I wish the government had said that Adobe had to sell any programs that MM was selling them, that Adobe already had a version of i.e., Freehand / Illustrator - GoLive / Dreamweaver
It seems like a very good business move ; buy the #1 - #2 (depending on the version) of software and bury it. Now you have the #1 app's in all catagories and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
You can't make an application that looks like Freehand / GoLive - acts like Freehand / GoLive, - feels like Freehand / GoLive, cuz if it looks like, feels like, acts like ? then it is, and you'll be in deep shit with Adboe ? Just seems like the wrong thing happended here
It's a safe bet, that if MicroSoft had purchased MM, the government would have stepped in, and told them to sell-off and competing applications? the one time I wish MS had done something.
Skip
QUOTE=junkie;1060088]RIP Freehand?[/QUOTE]
Unless I missed something, all the Adobe apps that were already available in PowerPC versions will still be available in PowerPC versions in CS3. The only Intel-only apps will be the new Mac versions of Premiere, Soundbooth, and Encore. G5 users will probably be content to stick with Final Cut Studio; I'm very skeptical that Adobe will be able to come close to Apple's efforts with those apps, but hey - competition is not a bad thing.
Of course that's the way it is. But, for some reason, people get all up in arms because someone said "We're bringing such-and-such back to the Mac" and think Adobe's going to go through all the trouble to build two whole sets of code for them. Sure, all the standard code should work on both platforms, but its the optimized code, tied to the chip and its vector processing units that all need separate bases (and, in theory, the intel base should be the same code as what's on windows).
And why should they waste the money on that, when they probably don't know if anyone wants the stuff to begin with. Just to make Mac users happy? Ha! We are talking Adobe here...
Then again, this is also what happens when people don't listen to the pragmatists out there. People like myself, who saw how easy it was to build the universal binary (hmm, just check a box, huh?) but also said "Hey, sure, they can do it. But there's nothing in XCode that forces them to do it. What happens when people, including apple, start releasing intel-only software". But no one listened...