True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.
I never have any problems - maybe it is because I have 8 gigs of ram, dual xeons and over a terabyte of storage. People who run mismatched hardware and software are always going to have less than optimum results. If you are trying to run an older version of Photoshop on a new OS or the opposite, new version of Photoshop on an old OS it will not work as well as having everything current. In either case Photoshop is an expensive professional tool which needs plenty of resources to operate properly.
But as far as Flash is concerned, people are giving Adobe a bunch of crap, but don't forget this is the first Adobe version of Flash, so if you don't like Flash then you should blame the old Macromedia. I think Adobe is making a lot of progress with the spec and extending it to Flex is a good start in getting serious web applications on the platform. Everyone hates the ads but, those are from the scum sucking advertisers not the innovative application developers. Once in a while you even see a cool Flash ad, but I grant you not very often.
Then you have to understand what it's launching. It has many filters, custom presets, color management software, etc. It looks for whether there are the proper frameworks, of which there are more than a few, fonts, scratch disks, and your pictures that were already worked, and filed.
So, yes, it does take a bit of time to launch, so what?
I've never had PS corrupt files. Never! If you do, then there is something wrong with your installation of the software, or the OS, or other third party software, such as system enhancements.
In comparison, iTunes is a very simple program.
You know, there was a time when I could run almost every Adobe app I used at the same time. And it ran great. Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. That was probably on 2 Gigs of ram, 1GHZ G4. Then the fucking "CS" suite came along. Now I'm using a dual 2.7 G5, around 6gigs of ram, and when I run Photoshop, I have to shut everything else down. Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.
In fact, the biggest improvement to Photoshop that's been added in the last 8 years is exposé - and it was Apple that added that. The next biggest leap before that was when they added multiple undos in Photoshop 5 - I think it was. I mean, crap, they can't even get the windows to work with exposé correctly when your in full screen mode!
Same with Illustrator, it's a frickin' VECTOR app, and it is so frickin' bloated! And what features have been added in the last 8 years? Like a frickin' vector lense flair effect.
InDesign - CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES. At the most opportune times to - during export and saving. Dumping the preferences for InDesign is really all that can be done.
Flash - OK I'm not going to talk a lot about this, cause I'm just going to get really mad here. But it's pretty much a pile of junk.
Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.
I guess you don't use layers, filters, masks, smart objects, paths, filmstrip and feather much, because they are all much improved, not to mention non-destructive editing like layers that don't clip on scaling. If you dislike Photoshop CS so much you'll really hate Photoshop Extended.
What is the point of "improving" features, if it is just going to bring down the entire App and make it unstable and a pain to work with. I used to love working in photoshop, and the other Adobe apps for that matter, I've used BETA versions of Photoshop that where more stable than it is today. Now it's just a half baked pile of $#%^.
But as far as Flash is concerned, people are giving Adobe a bunch of crap, but don't forget this is the first Adobe version of Flash, so if you don't like Flash then you should blame the old Macromedia.
Glad someone said it. Adobe hasn't added too much to Flash since they bought out Macromedia and aligned it with the CS3 look and feel. Granted, it doesn't feel much better either.
Flash should be implemented on the iPhone in Safari as well as a standalone flash player. It's used to some degree by just about everyone and the install base is huge. One can't ignore that many people and that much content, regardless of how poorly it can be implemented.
As mentioned before, there should be a choice in running it, perhaps something like flashblock.
What is the point of "improving" features, if it is just going to bring down the entire App and make it unstable and a pain to work with. I used to love working in photoshop, and the other Adobe apps for that matter, I've used BETA versions of Photoshop that where more stable than it is today. Now it's just a half baked pile of $#%^.
You might want to look at Photoshop Elements instead. It just may fulfill your needs, especially if you are mostly working in RGB and don't use a lot of channels, curves, etc. and it is a much lighter application in terms of system requirements.
I don't think we will see Photoshop on the iPhone so no worries there. As others have said here, Flash on iPhone will probably be available someday. And yes I will most likely keep it turned off until I need it for something specific.
You know, there was a time when I could run almost every Adobe app I used at the same time. And it ran great. Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. That was probably on 2 Gigs of ram, 1GHZ G4. Then the fucking "CS" suite came along. Now I'm using a dual 2.7 G5, around 6gigs of ram, and when I run Photoshop, I have to shut everything else down. Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.
In fact, the biggest improvement to Photoshop that's been added in the last 8 years is exposé - and it was Apple that added that. The next biggest leap before that was when they added multiple undos in Photoshop 5 - I think it was. I mean, crap, they can't even get the windows to work with exposé correctly when your in full screen mode!
Same with Illustrator, it's a frickin' VECTOR app, and it is so frickin' bloated! And what features have been added in the last 8 years? Like a frickin' vector lense flair effect.
InDesign - CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES. At the most opportune times to - during export and saving. Dumping the preferences for InDesign is really all that can be done.
Flash - OK I'm not going to talk a lot about this, cause I'm just going to get really mad here. But it's pretty much a pile of junk.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on any of that. Even on my old dual G4, I can run the entire CS3 suite without problems, though, naturally, it is a bit slow, but very usable.
On my dual G5, it all runs just fine.
On a dual 2 core Intel machine it runs very well.
Until Apple came out with ver 2.0 of Aperture, it didn't even run that well in the dual 2 core Intel machine. And now it cheats to do so.
I've used PS and the rest of the programs professionally in my own company for many years. If you don't understand what Adobe has done and added, then you don't use the program for the purpose it was designed. Those of us who have been commercial users, and those of us who have been part of the beta program have ASKED for many of those features, and Adobe responded. Previously, we had to buy many of them as plug-ins.
If you don't need the features, perhaps you don't need a professional program. Stick with Aperture, as it's an in between program. Great for Amateurs, and pros who don't need to do much to their work.
And yes, Rarely InDesign will have a problem, but I'd still rather use it than Quark.
Words to live by. (If you have Windows on your machine.....)
I don't, so i wont' luive by those words.
And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)
One has to be careful not to speak in absolutes. As easy as it is to bash Windows and Flash (especially in a Mac-centric forum), they both play an important role in some service most of us use on a daily basis.
Not all flash implemented on the web is bad either and one certainly has to consider the time period in which it sprang. When people were creating multiple versions of the same html site during the browser wars, no web programmer or designer could win. It took a looong time for some reasonable web standards to get here.
When Flash (FutureSplash) entered the picture, some new possibilities began to emerge and it offered some interesting alternatives at the time. It also helped fuel some of the commercial interest in the web since one could offer something better than image maps, slices and animated gifs.
Granted, most people who build flash sites nowadays often miss the big picture, but let's not totally brand it as a innately bad thing. It works really well as a video delivery platform for instance. It's also something that web clientele ask for to some degree in a whole slew of web projects.
Ultimately, having flash implemented on the iphone could offer an experience more closely related to what we see on the average desktop. That seems to be something most people want (including Apple), but as always, YMMV.
One has to be careful not to speak in absolutes. As easy as it is to bash Windows and Flash (especially in a Mac-centric forum), they both play an important role in some service most of us use on a daily basis.
Not all flash implemented on the web is bad either and one certainly has to consider the time period in which it sprang. When people were creating multiple versions of the same html site during the browser wars, no web programmer or designer could win. It took a looong time for some reasonable web standards to get here.
When Flash (FutureSplash) entered the picture, some new possibilities began to emerge and it offered some interesting alternatives at the time. It also helped fuel some of the commercial interest in the web since one could offer something better than image maps, slices and animated gifs.
Granted, most people who build flash sites nowadays often miss the big picture, but let's not totally brand it as a innately bad thing. It works really well as a video delivery platform for instance. It's also something that web clientele ask for to some degree in a whole slew of web projects.
Ultimately, having flash implemented on the iphone could offer an experience more closely related to what we see on the average desktop. That seems to be something most people want (including Apple), but as always, YMMV.
When someone says, if people want it Apple should support it "No Matter How Poorly It Is Implemented", I draw the line.
I would specifically like Apple to keep the crap out that is implemented really badly and survives because people want it.
There's a reason I run no spyware, malware or virus protection on my MACs.....
...... and if Flash gets better, I'd consider it.
The idea that Apple should bend to the Flash world is just not to my way of thinking.
They dug in, and Steve basically said it ain't happening.
Adobe came out after looking at the SDK and said they now have enough to go forward.
(a statement they had to retract, as I said they would have to do)
If they want into the iPhone badly enough to put out a statement so wrong, then when the 3G is out selling really hot and the developers load iTunes with apps.... they'll rework flash into something friendlier. (and still many will want a way to disable it on the iPhone like some browsers allow)
When someone says, if people want it Apple should support it "No Matter How Poorly It Is Implemented", I draw the line.
That's certainly a fair assessment and I agree with you. It appears I've not made myself clear with the use of the word "implementation".
What I mean is, I expect Adobe to deliver solid and intuitive Flash capability for the iPhone and Apple should work with them to get it just right since it offers a large value to users. I don't see any reason why this can't be made possible.
What I'm railing against, is the notion that Flash as a platform is the next big evil and should be avoided. Flash plays a bigger role than a lot of people want to give it credit for (banner ads, etc.). Ignoring it would be unwise.
I've used PS and the rest of the programs professionally in my own company for many years.
There is no question that the Adobe CS suite is adequate for the small business. But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.
Quote:
If you don't understand what Adobe has done and added, then you don't use the program for the purpose it was designed.
BS. What new features? The 3 patch tools they have? Sure, some things have been improved, but only because they were so poorly implemented when they where introduced.
I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you are not having serious issues with the Creative Suite, then you are not doing pro level work in any great volume. If all you are doing is touching up a photograph one at a time, no doubt it's smooth sailing.
Quote:
Those of us who have been commercial users, and those of us who have been part of the beta program have ASKED for many of those features, and Adobe responded. Previously, we had to buy many of them as plug-ins.
Wrong again. Adobe as thrown in a pile of features to hop on the amateur photography bandwagon, and it has come at a hell of a price. All the fundamental tools are pretty much the EXACT same. But we have gone from a time when Adobe apps rarely crashed or hung (except Illustrator which was famous for it) to now where you can expect a crashes unless you are doing little pamphlets and such.
But don't ever think that one company "owes" something to another. It doesn't.
Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.
I'm not sure about the printing part because I always print from the exported PDF, but I routinely work on 40+ page super complicated brochures that are in the 1+ gig files size range and I usually have a couple of those types of documents open at the same time. I never have any problems or crashes so I would guess you need more computing power.
Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
And let's not forget that Adobe exists today because of Apple, how could Adobe have become Adobe if not for the GUI brought fourth by Apple? And what would MS have done without it either?
Haaaa, but yes, the oposing argument is that Apple really didn't create anything new and is not really directly responsible for Adobe's existence because somewhere, somehow, by some inevetably chances of this and that, with some bla-bla's thrown in just to prove that Apple did nothing really, this GUI innovation would have made it's way into the computer world anyway. I'm sure!
None of this is really that important, I just find interesting that a company whose existance was brought fourth by another now finds alright to diss that very same company. Ain't life sweet.
There is no question that the Adobe CS suite is adequate for the small business. But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.
BS. What new features? The 3 patch tools they have? Sure, some things have been improved, but only because they were so poorly implemented when they where introduced.
I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you are not having serious issues with the Creative Suite, then you are not doing pro level work in any great volume. If all you are doing is touching up a photograph one at a time, no doubt it's smooth sailing.
Wrong again. Adobe as thrown in a pile of features to hop on the amateur photography bandwagon, and it has come at a hell of a price. All the fundamental tools are pretty much the EXACT same. But we have gone from a time when Adobe apps rarely crashed or hung (except Illustrator which was famous for it) to now where you can expect a crashes unless you are doing little pamphlets and such.
Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
That's nonsense. Apple owes just as much to Adobe, if you want to think the past is relevant to today, which it isn't.
What Adobe and Apple did, was done to help their own companies.
When Apple was foundering, Adobe, and quite a few other companies did what was right for them, they moved their programs to Windows as well. If I were a stockholder, or employee of those companies I would have wanted that, as would you.
Apple has done plenty to cross Adobe up over the years.
Companies work together to further their own aims.
Comments
True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.
I never have any problems - maybe it is because I have 8 gigs of ram, dual xeons and over a terabyte of storage. People who run mismatched hardware and software are always going to have less than optimum results. If you are trying to run an older version of Photoshop on a new OS or the opposite, new version of Photoshop on an old OS it will not work as well as having everything current. In either case Photoshop is an expensive professional tool which needs plenty of resources to operate properly.
But as far as Flash is concerned, people are giving Adobe a bunch of crap, but don't forget this is the first Adobe version of Flash, so if you don't like Flash then you should blame the old Macromedia. I think Adobe is making a lot of progress with the spec and extending it to Flex is a good start in getting serious web applications on the platform. Everyone hates the ads but, those are from the scum sucking advertisers not the innovative application developers. Once in a while you even see a cool Flash ad, but I grant you not very often.
Then you have to understand what it's launching. It has many filters, custom presets, color management software, etc. It looks for whether there are the proper frameworks, of which there are more than a few, fonts, scratch disks, and your pictures that were already worked, and filed.
So, yes, it does take a bit of time to launch, so what?
I've never had PS corrupt files. Never! If you do, then there is something wrong with your installation of the software, or the OS, or other third party software, such as system enhancements.
In comparison, iTunes is a very simple program.
You know, there was a time when I could run almost every Adobe app I used at the same time. And it ran great. Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. That was probably on 2 Gigs of ram, 1GHZ G4. Then the fucking "CS" suite came along. Now I'm using a dual 2.7 G5, around 6gigs of ram, and when I run Photoshop, I have to shut everything else down. Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.
In fact, the biggest improvement to Photoshop that's been added in the last 8 years is exposé - and it was Apple that added that. The next biggest leap before that was when they added multiple undos in Photoshop 5 - I think it was. I mean, crap, they can't even get the windows to work with exposé correctly when your in full screen mode!
Same with Illustrator, it's a frickin' VECTOR app, and it is so frickin' bloated! And what features have been added in the last 8 years? Like a frickin' vector lense flair effect.
InDesign - CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES. At the most opportune times to - during export and saving. Dumping the preferences for InDesign is really all that can be done.
Flash - OK I'm not going to talk a lot about this, cause I'm just going to get really mad here. But it's pretty much a pile of junk.
Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.
I guess you don't use layers, filters, masks, smart objects, paths, filmstrip and feather much, because they are all much improved, not to mention non-destructive editing like layers that don't clip on scaling. If you dislike Photoshop CS so much you'll really hate Photoshop Extended.
But as far as Flash is concerned, people are giving Adobe a bunch of crap, but don't forget this is the first Adobe version of Flash, so if you don't like Flash then you should blame the old Macromedia.
Glad someone said it. Adobe hasn't added too much to Flash since they bought out Macromedia and aligned it with the CS3 look and feel. Granted, it doesn't feel much better either.
Flash should be implemented on the iPhone in Safari as well as a standalone flash player. It's used to some degree by just about everyone and the install base is huge. One can't ignore that many people and that much content, regardless of how poorly it can be implemented.
As mentioned before, there should be a choice in running it, perhaps something like flashblock.
What is the point of "improving" features, if it is just going to bring down the entire App and make it unstable and a pain to work with. I used to love working in photoshop, and the other Adobe apps for that matter, I've used BETA versions of Photoshop that where more stable than it is today. Now it's just a half baked pile of $#%^.
You might want to look at Photoshop Elements instead. It just may fulfill your needs, especially if you are mostly working in RGB and don't use a lot of channels, curves, etc. and it is a much lighter application in terms of system requirements.
I don't think we will see Photoshop on the iPhone so no worries there. As others have said here, Flash on iPhone will probably be available someday. And yes I will most likely keep it turned off until I need it for something specific.
You know, there was a time when I could run almost every Adobe app I used at the same time. And it ran great. Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. That was probably on 2 Gigs of ram, 1GHZ G4. Then the fucking "CS" suite came along. Now I'm using a dual 2.7 G5, around 6gigs of ram, and when I run Photoshop, I have to shut everything else down. Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.
In fact, the biggest improvement to Photoshop that's been added in the last 8 years is exposé - and it was Apple that added that. The next biggest leap before that was when they added multiple undos in Photoshop 5 - I think it was. I mean, crap, they can't even get the windows to work with exposé correctly when your in full screen mode!
Same with Illustrator, it's a frickin' VECTOR app, and it is so frickin' bloated! And what features have been added in the last 8 years? Like a frickin' vector lense flair effect.
InDesign - CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES. At the most opportune times to - during export and saving. Dumping the preferences for InDesign is really all that can be done.
Flash - OK I'm not going to talk a lot about this, cause I'm just going to get really mad here. But it's pretty much a pile of junk.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on any of that. Even on my old dual G4, I can run the entire CS3 suite without problems, though, naturally, it is a bit slow, but very usable.
On my dual G5, it all runs just fine.
On a dual 2 core Intel machine it runs very well.
Until Apple came out with ver 2.0 of Aperture, it didn't even run that well in the dual 2 core Intel machine. And now it cheats to do so.
I've used PS and the rest of the programs professionally in my own company for many years. If you don't understand what Adobe has done and added, then you don't use the program for the purpose it was designed. Those of us who have been commercial users, and those of us who have been part of the beta program have ASKED for many of those features, and Adobe responded. Previously, we had to buy many of them as plug-ins.
If you don't need the features, perhaps you don't need a professional program. Stick with Aperture, as it's an in between program. Great for Amateurs, and pros who don't need to do much to their work.
And yes, Rarely InDesign will have a problem, but I'd still rather use it than Quark.
One can't ignore that many people and that much content, regardless of how poorly it can be implemented.
Really?
Words to live by. (If you have Windows on your machine.....)
I don't, so i wont' luive by those words.
And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)
Really?
Words to live by. (If you have Windows on your machine.....)
I don't, so i wont' luive by those words.
And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)
One has to be careful not to speak in absolutes. As easy as it is to bash Windows and Flash (especially in a Mac-centric forum), they both play an important role in some service most of us use on a daily basis.
Not all flash implemented on the web is bad either and one certainly has to consider the time period in which it sprang. When people were creating multiple versions of the same html site during the browser wars, no web programmer or designer could win. It took a looong time for some reasonable web standards to get here.
When Flash (FutureSplash) entered the picture, some new possibilities began to emerge and it offered some interesting alternatives at the time. It also helped fuel some of the commercial interest in the web since one could offer something better than image maps, slices and animated gifs.
Granted, most people who build flash sites nowadays often miss the big picture, but let's not totally brand it as a innately bad thing. It works really well as a video delivery platform for instance. It's also something that web clientele ask for to some degree in a whole slew of web projects.
Ultimately, having flash implemented on the iphone could offer an experience more closely related to what we see on the average desktop. That seems to be something most people want (including Apple), but as always, YMMV.
One has to be careful not to speak in absolutes. As easy as it is to bash Windows and Flash (especially in a Mac-centric forum), they both play an important role in some service most of us use on a daily basis.
Not all flash implemented on the web is bad either and one certainly has to consider the time period in which it sprang. When people were creating multiple versions of the same html site during the browser wars, no web programmer or designer could win. It took a looong time for some reasonable web standards to get here.
When Flash (FutureSplash) entered the picture, some new possibilities began to emerge and it offered some interesting alternatives at the time. It also helped fuel some of the commercial interest in the web since one could offer something better than image maps, slices and animated gifs.
Granted, most people who build flash sites nowadays often miss the big picture, but let's not totally brand it as a innately bad thing. It works really well as a video delivery platform for instance. It's also something that web clientele ask for to some degree in a whole slew of web projects.
Ultimately, having flash implemented on the iphone could offer an experience more closely related to what we see on the average desktop. That seems to be something most people want (including Apple), but as always, YMMV.
When someone says, if people want it Apple should support it "No Matter How Poorly It Is Implemented", I draw the line.
I would specifically like Apple to keep the crap out that is implemented really badly and survives because people want it.
There's a reason I run no spyware, malware or virus protection on my MACs.....
...... and if Flash gets better, I'd consider it.
The idea that Apple should bend to the Flash world is just not to my way of thinking.
They dug in, and Steve basically said it ain't happening.
Adobe came out after looking at the SDK and said they now have enough to go forward.
(a statement they had to retract, as I said they would have to do)
If they want into the iPhone badly enough to put out a statement so wrong, then when the 3G is out selling really hot and the developers load iTunes with apps.... they'll rework flash into something friendlier. (and still many will want a way to disable it on the iPhone like some browsers allow)
When someone says, if people want it Apple should support it "No Matter How Poorly It Is Implemented", I draw the line.
That's certainly a fair assessment and I agree with you. It appears I've not made myself clear with the use of the word "implementation".
What I mean is, I expect Adobe to deliver solid and intuitive Flash capability for the iPhone and Apple should work with them to get it just right since it offers a large value to users. I don't see any reason why this can't be made possible.
What I'm railing against, is the notion that Flash as a platform is the next big evil and should be avoided. Flash plays a bigger role than a lot of people want to give it credit for (banner ads, etc.). Ignoring it would be unwise.
And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)
That's actually very funny.
...... and if Flash gets better, I'd consider it.
The idea that Apple should bend to the Flash world is just not to my way of thinking.
They dug in, and Steve basically said it ain't happening.
)
But, Steve never said that.
I've used PS and the rest of the programs professionally in my own company for many years.
There is no question that the Adobe CS suite is adequate for the small business. But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.
If you don't understand what Adobe has done and added, then you don't use the program for the purpose it was designed.
BS. What new features? The 3 patch tools they have? Sure, some things have been improved, but only because they were so poorly implemented when they where introduced.
I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you are not having serious issues with the Creative Suite, then you are not doing pro level work in any great volume. If all you are doing is touching up a photograph one at a time, no doubt it's smooth sailing.
Those of us who have been commercial users, and those of us who have been part of the beta program have ASKED for many of those features, and Adobe responded. Previously, we had to buy many of them as plug-ins.
Wrong again. Adobe as thrown in a pile of features to hop on the amateur photography bandwagon, and it has come at a hell of a price. All the fundamental tools are pretty much the EXACT same. But we have gone from a time when Adobe apps rarely crashed or hung (except Illustrator which was famous for it) to now where you can expect a crashes unless you are doing little pamphlets and such.
But don't ever think that one company "owes" something to another. It doesn't.
Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
But, Steve never said that.
What?
Steve never said what?
But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.
I'm not sure about the printing part because I always print from the exported PDF, but I routinely work on 40+ page super complicated brochures that are in the 1+ gig files size range and I usually have a couple of those types of documents open at the same time. I never have any problems or crashes so I would guess you need more computing power.
Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
And let's not forget that Adobe exists today because of Apple, how could Adobe have become Adobe if not for the GUI brought fourth by Apple? And what would MS have done without it either?
Haaaa, but yes, the oposing argument is that Apple really didn't create anything new and is not really directly responsible for Adobe's existence because somewhere, somehow, by some inevetably chances of this and that, with some bla-bla's thrown in just to prove that Apple did nothing really, this GUI innovation would have made it's way into the computer world anyway. I'm sure!
None of this is really that important, I just find interesting that a company whose existance was brought fourth by another now finds alright to diss that very same company. Ain't life sweet.
There is no question that the Adobe CS suite is adequate for the small business. But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.
BS. What new features? The 3 patch tools they have? Sure, some things have been improved, but only because they were so poorly implemented when they where introduced.
I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you are not having serious issues with the Creative Suite, then you are not doing pro level work in any great volume. If all you are doing is touching up a photograph one at a time, no doubt it's smooth sailing.
Wrong again. Adobe as thrown in a pile of features to hop on the amateur photography bandwagon, and it has come at a hell of a price. All the fundamental tools are pretty much the EXACT same. But we have gone from a time when Adobe apps rarely crashed or hung (except Illustrator which was famous for it) to now where you can expect a crashes unless you are doing little pamphlets and such.
Nothing is perfect. Have you ever used Quark?
But, basically, I disagree.
Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
That's nonsense. Apple owes just as much to Adobe, if you want to think the past is relevant to today, which it isn't.
What Adobe and Apple did, was done to help their own companies.
When Apple was foundering, Adobe, and quite a few other companies did what was right for them, they moved their programs to Windows as well. If I were a stockholder, or employee of those companies I would have wanted that, as would you.
Apple has done plenty to cross Adobe up over the years.
Companies work together to further their own aims.