"This functionality is not working in the current beta versions," people familiar with the *matter tell AppleInsider
Whoever these people are, they aren't very familiar with iPhone compiling. It's very much working and is pretty impressive. There are quite a few apps already in the app store:
Multipurposing these once-great print apps to export to the new-fangled online world seems like more opportunities for bloat, bragging rights, feature-creep, insanely complex code and crashes. I don't want a suite of Swiss-army knives! I need a suite of the best single-purpose knives I can own. I really like the Harry Potter-esqe world of having video in newspapers, magazines, billboards and books, but I don't think the technology is here to really allow us to print a newspaper or book like those that exist in the fantasy world.
I need a page design tool (InDesign) that is robust enough to handle a 500-page (or larger!) print job and not crash while exporting to PDF because it exceeds a 32-bit boundary.
I need an Illustrator that lets me develop illustrations that don't crash a RIP. Or mis-render in Photoshop because they crash a RIP.
And while I'm moaning and groaning, why can InDesign create beautiful typography while Illustrator makes text look worse than the trash created by Microsoft's word processor?
Am I a part of dieing breed of PRINT designers? Why do we need to "leverage" programs like InDesign into the virtual world just to "make things familiar"? I fully appreciate that Illustrator and Photoshop work exceedingly well in creating web graphics. But InDesign?
I'm not ready to accept extinction yet. Perhaps I just won't move beyond CS4 and all its inherent faults to use the few tools that really do work better than anything out there.
I guess I'm not the only one who's frustrated and has an increasingly hate-hate relationship with Adobe.
"....It also appears that Adobe continues to miss the boat with HTML 5, and is focused almost exclusively on trying to get users to depend more on Flash ? even as the Web development community is looking elsewhere."
Whoever these people are, they aren't very familiar with iPhone compiling. It's very much working and is pretty impressive. There are quite a few apps already in the app store:
I've tried these native flash apps and it works quite well since it compiled directly to machine code rather than being interpreted by a flash runtime player.
Please tell me, what is your workable substitute for The CS suite? I hear all the complaints, and most of them are justifiable, but is there another choice that actually works as well or better?
I guess I'm not the only one who's frustrated and has an increasingly hate-hate relationship with Adobe.
Not by a long shot... The entire Creative Suite has been stagnant since about CS2 (or whenever they introduced Smart Objects). They've missed countless opportunities to improve the interface and consistency between apps, and the only difference I recall in CS4 vs. CS3 is that now I have to turn off even more crap in the preferences. Shadows? Really Adobe? You think I want to see all the images I'm working on surrounded by a fake shadow that isn't part of the image?
What a better position they would be in if they hadn't acquired Macromedia. Dreamweaver is irrelevant for web developers, hardly anyone knows what Fireworks is, and Flash is taking its last breath. If they had focused on their core products instead of using 3+ releases to "better integrate" with Macromedia's crap, we might actually like Adobe today.
Before coding a website I design it in InDesign first as it's a better program for laying out objects and experimenting with layouts, especially if I'm using a grid. The ability to have a preset for the web would be great, just as Illustrator does in CS4.
You're using a page layout application to design a website? Ha!
Please tell me, what is your workable substitute for The CS suite? I hear all the complaints, and most of them are justifiable, but is there another choice that actually works as well or better?
Not by a long shot... The entire Creative Suite has been stagnant since about CS2 (or whenever they introduced Smart Objects). They've missed countless opportunities to improve the interface and consistency between apps, and the only difference I recall in CS4 vs. CS3 is that now I have to turn off even more crap in the preferences. Shadows? Really Adobe? You think I want to see all the images I'm working on surrounded by a fake shadow that isn't part of the image?
What a better position they would be in if they hadn't acquired Macromedia. Dreamweaver is irrelevant for web developers, hardly anyone knows what Fireworks is, and Flash is taking its last breath. If they had focused on their core products instead of using 3+ releases to "better integrate" with Macromedia's crap, we might actually like Adobe today.
Good point. Reminds me of when AMD bought out ATI. Now look at them? They've driven both brands into the ground. Fireworks seems to be overlapped by Illustrator. Flash was the only real product they wanted/needed from Macromedia. They should have let them keep the rest and just acquired Flash. Dreamweaver does have some benefits over other editors but I use it very very rarely. I prefer the less bloated editors.
CS5 should have a lower price point but I seriously doubt Adobe will do that. Snow Leopard was mostly under-the-hood changes and I think they were significant. I think its a massive improvement over Leopard in terms of daily usage and overall function. If CS5 has been completely re-written for native Cocoa and 64-bit. I believe it will be an equally great release. Many little annoyances I suspect will have been addressed and the overall performance increased. Being Cocoa based now, maybe it will even play nice with Spaces. Another thing that always bugged me was the inconsistency. Splash screens would be all over the screen (too hard to centre I guess) and the apps themselves were mixed, some with CS4 included, some without, some with Adobe included others without. How hard is it to name everything with a similar scheme and to centre the damn splash screens.
Anyone know if you can get into the beta for Photoshop CS5?
Not by a long shot... The entire Creative Suite has been stagnant since about CS2 (or whenever they introduced Smart Objects). They've missed countless opportunities to improve the interface and consistency between apps, and the only difference I recall in CS4 vs. CS3 is that now I have to turn off even more crap in the preferences. Shadows? Really Adobe? You think I want to see all the images I'm working on surrounded by a fake shadow that isn't part of the image?
What a better position they would be in if they hadn't acquired Macromedia. Dreamweaver is irrelevant for web developers, hardly anyone knows what Fireworks is, and Flash is taking its last breath. If they had focused on their core products instead of using 3+ releases to "better integrate" with Macromedia's crap, we might actually like Adobe today.
That's what happens when you buy out your competition.. Not that macromedia was seriously competing with them. (Macromedia's stars were flash and dreamweaver and Adobe had everything else... now they just have everything)
That's what happens when you buy out your competition.. Not that macromedia was seriously competing with them. (Macromedia's stars were flash and dreamweaver and Adobe had everything else... now they just have everything)
Aperture 3 is going to make some of Photoshop irrelevant (non destructive brushes etc) for photographers. PS5 is late in the game. Adobe continues to spin chaotically in the Mac realm. Jobs knows it too.
Photoshop has had a little thing called Camera Raw for years. Maybe you should try it.
Good point. Reminds me of when AMD bought out ATI. Now look at them? They've driven both brands into the ground. Fireworks seems to be overlapped by Illustrator. Flash was the only real product they wanted/needed from Macromedia. They should have let them keep the rest and just acquired Flash. Dreamweaver does have some benefits over other editors but I use it very very rarely. I prefer the less bloated editors.
CS5 should have a lower price point but I seriously doubt Adobe will do that. Snow Leopard was mostly under-the-hood changes and I think they were significant. I think its a massive improvement over Leopard in terms of daily usage and overall function. If CS5 has been completely re-written for native Cocoa and 64-bit. I believe it will be an equally great release. Many little annoyances I suspect will have been addressed and the overall performance increased. Being Cocoa based now, maybe it will even play nice with Spaces. Another thing that always bugged me was the inconsistency. Splash screens would be all over the screen (too hard to centre I guess) and the apps themselves were mixed, some with CS4 included, some without, some with Adobe included others without. How hard is it to name everything with a similar scheme and to centre the damn splash screens.
Anyone know if you can get into the beta for Photoshop CS5?
I wish Lightroom would get just the pieces of Ps that the average photographer needs instead of trying to sell us both Lr and Ps (or CS Suite). For example, "retouching capability which makes it easier to remove objects from images" should also be in Lr. But that's Adobe in a nutshell, selling you tons of stuff you don't need or want to get the handful of stuff you care about.
I can't wait to see the Byzantine upgrade processes from a current CS product to the new round of CS bundles...
Sounds like you should try the Aperture 3 trial...
Aperture 3 is going to make some of Photoshop irrelevant (non destructive brushes etc) for photographers. PS5 is late in the game.
Until Aperture gets masks and layers, Ps is going to maintain the edge for certain types of work.
Aperture 3's nondestructive brushes is a good start, it just doesn't go far enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM
Photoshop has had a little thing called Camera Raw for years. Maybe you should try it.
Meh. Not relevant for a thousand shots in a photoshoot. Or a library on an external drive that may not be attached today.
Lightroom is the more useful Adobe product for photographers. It gets you to maybe 90% of the solution. The problem is the cost of a full version of Ps for that last 10%.
Given what's already in the Lr 3 beta, I find Camera Raw less and less relevant. I'd buy Lr 4 with layers and masks in a heartbeat. Or Aperture 4 with layers and masks. But I have zero use for all the 3D crap they are apparently throwing into the new version of Ps.
The first company that figures that out is going to make a LOT of money...
Until Aperture gets masks and layers, Ps is going to maintain the edge for certain types of work.
Aperture 3's nondestructive brushes is a good start, it just doesn't go far enough.
Meh. Not relevant for a thousand shots in a photoshoot. Or a library on an external drive that may not be attached today.
Lightroom is the more useful Adobe product for photographers. It gets you to maybe 90% of the solution. The problem is the cost of a full version of Ps for that last 10%.
Given what's already in the Lr 3 beta, I find Camera Raw less and less relevant. I'd buy Lr 4 with layers and masks in a heartbeat. Or Aperture 4 with layers and masks. But I have zero use for all the 3D crap they are apparently throwing into the new version of Ps.
The first company that figures that out is going to make a LOT of money...
Why would you need layers and masks in a non-destructive program like Lightroom?
You know there are variations of Photoshop without the 3D crap.
Comments
"This functionality is not working in the current beta versions," people familiar with the *matter tell AppleInsider
Whoever these people are, they aren't very familiar with iPhone compiling. It's very much working and is pretty impressive. There are quite a few apps already in the app store:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/f...ppsfor_iphone/
I need a page design tool (InDesign) that is robust enough to handle a 500-page (or larger!) print job and not crash while exporting to PDF because it exceeds a 32-bit boundary.
I need an Illustrator that lets me develop illustrations that don't crash a RIP. Or mis-render in Photoshop because they crash a RIP.
And while I'm moaning and groaning, why can InDesign create beautiful typography while Illustrator makes text look worse than the trash created by Microsoft's word processor?
Am I a part of dieing breed of PRINT designers? Why do we need to "leverage" programs like InDesign into the virtual world just to "make things familiar"? I fully appreciate that Illustrator and Photoshop work exceedingly well in creating web graphics. But InDesign?
I'm not ready to accept extinction yet. Perhaps I just won't move beyond CS4 and all its inherent faults to use the few tools that really do work better than anything out there.
I guess I'm not the only one who's frustrated and has an increasingly hate-hate relationship with Adobe.
"....It also appears that Adobe continues to miss the boat with HTML 5, and is focused almost exclusively on trying to get users to depend more on Flash ? even as the Web development community is looking elsewhere."
Wait.. what?? I thought Adobe was working something using HTML 5's canvas in CS5.: Video: Flash CS5 running on HTML 5's Canvas
Did they just scrap that project out?
Whoever these people are, they aren't very familiar with iPhone compiling. It's very much working and is pretty impressive. There are quite a few apps already in the app store:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/f...ppsfor_iphone/
I've tried these native flash apps and it works quite well since it compiled directly to machine code rather than being interpreted by a flash runtime player.
Curt
I guess I'm not the only one who's frustrated and has an increasingly hate-hate relationship with Adobe.
Not by a long shot... The entire Creative Suite has been stagnant since about CS2 (or whenever they introduced Smart Objects). They've missed countless opportunities to improve the interface and consistency between apps, and the only difference I recall in CS4 vs. CS3 is that now I have to turn off even more crap in the preferences. Shadows? Really Adobe? You think I want to see all the images I'm working on surrounded by a fake shadow that isn't part of the image?
What a better position they would be in if they hadn't acquired Macromedia. Dreamweaver is irrelevant for web developers, hardly anyone knows what Fireworks is, and Flash is taking its last breath. If they had focused on their core products instead of using 3+ releases to "better integrate" with Macromedia's crap, we might actually like Adobe today.
Before coding a website I design it in InDesign first as it's a better program for laying out objects and experimenting with layouts, especially if I'm using a grid. The ability to have a preset for the web would be great, just as Illustrator does in CS4.
You're using a page layout application to design a website? Ha!
Try Fireworks.
Please tell me, what is your workable substitute for The CS suite? I hear all the complaints, and most of them are justifiable, but is there another choice that actually works as well or better?
Curt
There isn't one.
Not by a long shot... The entire Creative Suite has been stagnant since about CS2 (or whenever they introduced Smart Objects). They've missed countless opportunities to improve the interface and consistency between apps, and the only difference I recall in CS4 vs. CS3 is that now I have to turn off even more crap in the preferences. Shadows? Really Adobe? You think I want to see all the images I'm working on surrounded by a fake shadow that isn't part of the image?
What a better position they would be in if they hadn't acquired Macromedia. Dreamweaver is irrelevant for web developers, hardly anyone knows what Fireworks is, and Flash is taking its last breath. If they had focused on their core products instead of using 3+ releases to "better integrate" with Macromedia's crap, we might actually like Adobe today.
Good point. Reminds me of when AMD bought out ATI. Now look at them? They've driven both brands into the ground. Fireworks seems to be overlapped by Illustrator. Flash was the only real product they wanted/needed from Macromedia. They should have let them keep the rest and just acquired Flash. Dreamweaver does have some benefits over other editors but I use it very very rarely. I prefer the less bloated editors.
CS5 should have a lower price point but I seriously doubt Adobe will do that. Snow Leopard was mostly under-the-hood changes and I think they were significant. I think its a massive improvement over Leopard in terms of daily usage and overall function. If CS5 has been completely re-written for native Cocoa and 64-bit. I believe it will be an equally great release. Many little annoyances I suspect will have been addressed and the overall performance increased. Being Cocoa based now, maybe it will even play nice with Spaces. Another thing that always bugged me was the inconsistency. Splash screens would be all over the screen (too hard to centre I guess) and the apps themselves were mixed, some with CS4 included, some without, some with Adobe included others without. How hard is it to name everything with a similar scheme and to centre the damn splash screens.
Anyone know if you can get into the beta for Photoshop CS5?
Not by a long shot... The entire Creative Suite has been stagnant since about CS2 (or whenever they introduced Smart Objects). They've missed countless opportunities to improve the interface and consistency between apps, and the only difference I recall in CS4 vs. CS3 is that now I have to turn off even more crap in the preferences. Shadows? Really Adobe? You think I want to see all the images I'm working on surrounded by a fake shadow that isn't part of the image?
What a better position they would be in if they hadn't acquired Macromedia. Dreamweaver is irrelevant for web developers, hardly anyone knows what Fireworks is, and Flash is taking its last breath. If they had focused on their core products instead of using 3+ releases to "better integrate" with Macromedia's crap, we might actually like Adobe today.
That's what happens when you buy out your competition.. Not that macromedia was seriously competing with them. (Macromedia's stars were flash and dreamweaver and Adobe had everything else... now they just have everything)
That's what happens when you buy out your competition.. Not that macromedia was seriously competing with them. (Macromedia's stars were flash and dreamweaver and Adobe had everything else... now they just have everything)
Ah Shiite here come the quark people
Aperture 3 is going to make some of Photoshop irrelevant (non destructive brushes etc) for photographers. PS5 is late in the game. Adobe continues to spin chaotically in the Mac realm. Jobs knows it too.
Photoshop has had a little thing called Camera Raw for years. Maybe you should try it.
Good point. Reminds me of when AMD bought out ATI. Now look at them? They've driven both brands into the ground. Fireworks seems to be overlapped by Illustrator. Flash was the only real product they wanted/needed from Macromedia. They should have let them keep the rest and just acquired Flash. Dreamweaver does have some benefits over other editors but I use it very very rarely. I prefer the less bloated editors.
CS5 should have a lower price point but I seriously doubt Adobe will do that. Snow Leopard was mostly under-the-hood changes and I think they were significant. I think its a massive improvement over Leopard in terms of daily usage and overall function. If CS5 has been completely re-written for native Cocoa and 64-bit. I believe it will be an equally great release. Many little annoyances I suspect will have been addressed and the overall performance increased. Being Cocoa based now, maybe it will even play nice with Spaces. Another thing that always bugged me was the inconsistency. Splash screens would be all over the screen (too hard to centre I guess) and the apps themselves were mixed, some with CS4 included, some without, some with Adobe included others without. How hard is it to name everything with a similar scheme and to centre the damn splash screens.
Anyone know if you can get into the beta for Photoshop CS5?
CS5 is coming out in spring.
Figures.
I wish Lightroom would get just the pieces of Ps that the average photographer needs instead of trying to sell us both Lr and Ps (or CS Suite). For example, "retouching capability which makes it easier to remove objects from images" should also be in Lr. But that's Adobe in a nutshell, selling you tons of stuff you don't need or want to get the handful of stuff you care about.
I can't wait to see the Byzantine upgrade processes from a current CS product to the new round of CS bundles...
Sounds like you should try the Aperture 3 trial...
So even though CS4 was hardly different from CS3 and CS5 will be even less different than CS4 or CS3 ...
We still have to pay a thousand bucks for the privilege of using it, and then another thousand a year later when CS6 comes out? Seriously?
And Adobe wonders why no one likes their products anymore?
Let's see them give away these (long overdue and much asked for), "under the hood" improvements for 30 bucks like Apple did with Snow Leopard.
I'm sticking with CS3. Adobe will more than likely never offer anything that makes me upgrade. How sad.
Adobe = Rabid Stagnation
Aperture 3 is going to make some of Photoshop irrelevant (non destructive brushes etc) for photographers. PS5 is late in the game.
Until Aperture gets masks and layers, Ps is going to maintain the edge for certain types of work.
Aperture 3's nondestructive brushes is a good start, it just doesn't go far enough.
Photoshop has had a little thing called Camera Raw for years. Maybe you should try it.
Meh. Not relevant for a thousand shots in a photoshoot. Or a library on an external drive that may not be attached today.
Lightroom is the more useful Adobe product for photographers. It gets you to maybe 90% of the solution. The problem is the cost of a full version of Ps for that last 10%.
Given what's already in the Lr 3 beta, I find Camera Raw less and less relevant. I'd buy Lr 4 with layers and masks in a heartbeat. Or Aperture 4 with layers and masks. But I have zero use for all the 3D crap they are apparently throwing into the new version of Ps.
The first company that figures that out is going to make a LOT of money...
Adobe software is utter crap, someone please step up and show these losers how to innovate and cooperate.
Please someone design an app that's not as bloated as Dreamweaver, Illustrator and Photoshop.
Oh.. someone already has...Pixelmator, Vector Designer and who needs Dreamweaver when you have Textmate and web standards.
Flash is dead. I do all of my banners and slideshows in javascript and use QT for movies.
Why on earth would I spend $600 for an CS5 upgrade?
3D? I use Cinema4D. I'm even using Motion 4 now instead of After Effects.
Again, Adobe is putting all of their eggs into the Flash basket. What a dumb ass move.
Ed
Until Aperture gets masks and layers, Ps is going to maintain the edge for certain types of work.
Aperture 3's nondestructive brushes is a good start, it just doesn't go far enough.
Meh. Not relevant for a thousand shots in a photoshoot. Or a library on an external drive that may not be attached today.
Lightroom is the more useful Adobe product for photographers. It gets you to maybe 90% of the solution. The problem is the cost of a full version of Ps for that last 10%.
Given what's already in the Lr 3 beta, I find Camera Raw less and less relevant. I'd buy Lr 4 with layers and masks in a heartbeat. Or Aperture 4 with layers and masks. But I have zero use for all the 3D crap they are apparently throwing into the new version of Ps.
The first company that figures that out is going to make a LOT of money...
Why would you need layers and masks in a non-destructive program like Lightroom?
You know there are variations of Photoshop without the 3D crap.
Why would you need layers and masks in a non-destructive program like Lightroom?
You know there are variations of Photoshop without the 3D crap.
By the way, Aperture 3 is pretty good.
Ed