Slashdot Mirror

Well, look at the Photoshop CS3 requirements.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshopextended/systemreqs/
See, it also requires OS X 10.4+ which is equivalent to XP SP2. OS vendors can push developers, even Adobe sized ones coding only professional software. Some API etc. things force it.
So, you can continue to use Win2k but only with the newer software at a certain level. If you say "I want Photoshop CS3", you upgrade to XP. Also, if you use Win2K, I suggest something like commercial security solution like Kaspersky which is very goodly configured, I wouldn't trust to any MS security (!) on a EOL OS.

If by supporting you mean "have thrown an alpha or two over the wall for 32-bit x86 processors back in December", then yes, Adobe supports Linux with Flex.

Personally, I'm very happy about them releasing alphas. It's already quite usable.
Also, there's another commercial IDE, the SDK itself is under the MPL, and there are alternative (non-Adobe) tools as well.
Anyway, I highly recommend haXe, it's a fine language that you can also use to generate JavaScript, with a great type system.

Trying to do OSS development on the Flash platform is kind of a nightmare in terms of licensing.

Re Flex, check out the EULA, e.g., "No Modifications, No Reverse Engineering." The swf spec says "a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders SWF files." If you look at the list of codecs that are supported for Flash, or that may be supported in the near future, it's a mixture of totally proprietary codecs and others that are not quite as proprietary, but are not totally free and open either: mp3, a modified version of h.263, AAC audio, H.264 video, Nelly Moser. The EULA for the player says you can't modify it or reverse-engineer it, and can't run it on a portable device. As of a year ago, there were also a lot of compatibility and licensing issues with the Version 2 Components.

If you want to do totally OSS development on the flash platform, you can also do it using mtasc, haxe, and gnash. However, you then have to accept that mtasc supports an old version of actionscript, and haxe isn't the same language. I.e., you can't buy a flash book and expect to get the examples working.

Trying to do OSS development on the Flash platform is kind of a nightmare in terms of licensing.

Re Flex, check out the EULA, e.g., "No Modifications, No Reverse Engineering." The swf spec says "a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders SWF files." If you look at the list of codecs that are supported for Flash, or that may be supported in the near future, it's a mixture of totally proprietary codecs and others that are not quite as proprietary, but are not totally free and open either: mp3, a modified version of h.263, AAC audio, H.264 video, Nelly Moser. The EULA for the player says you can't modify it or reverse-engineer it, and can't run it on a portable device. As of a year ago, there were also a lot of compatibility and licensing issues with the Version 2 Components.

If you want to do totally OSS development on the flash platform, you can also do it using mtasc, haxe, and gnash. However, you then have to accept that mtasc supports an old version of actionscript, and haxe isn't the same language. I.e., you can't buy a flash book and expect to get the examples working.

Trying to do OSS development on the Flash platform is kind of a nightmare in terms of licensing.

Re Flex, check out the EULA, e.g., "No Modifications, No Reverse Engineering." The swf spec says "a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders SWF files." If you look at the list of codecs that are supported for Flash, or that may be supported in the near future, it's a mixture of totally proprietary codecs and others that are not quite as proprietary, but are not totally free and open either: mp3, a modified version of h.263, AAC audio, H.264 video, Nelly Moser. The EULA for the player says you can't modify it or reverse-engineer it, and can't run it on a portable device. As of a year ago, there were also a lot of compatibility and licensing issues with the Version 2 Components.

If you want to do totally OSS development on the flash platform, you can also do it using mtasc, haxe, and gnash. However, you then have to accept that mtasc supports an old version of actionscript, and haxe isn't the same language. I.e., you can't buy a flash book and expect to get the examples working.

Furthermore, if you pirate it, you become proficient with it. So you give them mindshare.
So if you ever decide to use this software professionally, you will buy it. And you won't even consider purchasing anything else.

The software industry, in part, understands this and therefore does little to suppress home piracy of professional software. And that is why Windows was easy to pirate until it got to nearly every computer: now that you depend on it, we'll make you buy it.
Kind of like drug dealers — it's all free until you get hooked.

Indeed, strict enforcement of anti-piracy measures would really benefit F/OSS development, not the big companies.

It's wouldn't OR couldn't. For example, I would love to have a copy of Photshop CS 3. It is $650. I could afford that but would never spend that much money on it (i.e. I wouldn't ever buy it at that price). So, if I pirate it they have not lost a sale to me.

Another scenario: I would very much like to have the full version of Ableton Live 7 ($500). I can afford this comfortably after I save up for 6 months or so and then will probably buy it. Now... if I pirate it before then and buy it after I save up, they lose nothing.

You see, intellectual "property" is really nothing like physical property. Physical property can be stolen, and then someone always loses something. With IP, making a copy does not always result in a loss of sale. Very, very different.

P.S. Another example: I watched all four seasons of Peep Show on YouTube recently, and will definitely be buying the DVD. In this case, the BBC (or whoever) is actually gaining a sale because I pirated their show: I most likely never would have seen it if it wasn't on YouTube.

SVG is a vector format allowing backgrounds/bitmaps to be hosted within any vecor in which all objects are fully DOM accessible, meaning the graphic elemetns can be programmed as are any page elements. This means that it is easul extensible using any of the AJAX techniques. There is also a whole suite of behaviors/movements that are defined in the specification.

One good place for this is the old Adobe SVG Community page

http://www.adobe.com/svg/community/external.html

I have alway been fond of the WPS Real-Time control widgets.

dev.opera.com is another good source of articles

svg.org lists 169 SVG capable phones

I am hoping that SVG is in the winter of its discontent and a spring is coming. But part of me also fears that it is dead.

There's already a free alternative well supported on mobile phones... SVG Tiny

What is needed there is a good free Authoring tool. The only one that is worth anything right now is Ikivo Animator... you can see a demo here

InkScape is good for creating SVG artwork but it doesn't have a timeline or scripting support for animations or interactivity.

This is called out on an SVG compliance comment on their wiki

The other authoring tool mentioned there is Beatware but it has disappeared... possibly purchased by another company and all references pulled.

Hmmm...don't know why this is news:

Flash: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer_pocketpc/downloads/player.html

PDF: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrrppcdload.html

I've had these installed since 2005.

Note that some flash videos like youtube videos, won't run in this implementation of Flash (so perhaps the article is referring to a version of Flash that *will* run streaming video). The widgets that web site designers tend to embed in their bloated websites do load for me with Windows Mobile 2003.

The "news" part of this may be that it's MS supporting this, not Adobe as it currently is, which may mean a better implementation.

Hmmm...don't know why this is news:

Flash: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer_pocketpc/downloads/player.html

PDF: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrrppcdload.html

I've had these installed since 2005.

Note that some flash videos like youtube videos, won't run in this implementation of Flash (so perhaps the article is referring to a version of Flash that *will* run streaming video). The widgets that web site designers tend to embed in their bloated websites do load for me with Windows Mobile 2003.

The "news" part of this may be that it's MS supporting this, not Adobe as it currently is, which may mean a better implementation.

Flash and Silverlight are fully documented, and there exists free implemenetations: Gnash and Moonlight, respectively.

You know why Flash became de-facto standard for video? Apple, Microsoft, Real Networks made it possible.

Microsoft Media Player: Zero multiplatform support for all features. OS X version got abandoned right after Apple moved to Intel which should make development a LOT easier (e.g. use same SSE acceleration commands, no endian issue). It is now living as a Quicktime codec and those IDIOTS are still distributing the old, PPC only, Browser stability killer, outdated junk. Why? To claim they are multi platform and also destabilise OS X via browser. Forget everything, the "player" is 24 MB.

Real Networks: Until the nerd coup happened and moved to open source, they did everything to make end user paranoid. They still do UI tricks to sell you "Plus" player via their site, the player is around 10-20 mb

Quicktime: Not just coding horribly for Windows Platform, they still ask a freaking e-mail while it is not mandatory, do 1990s tricks to bundle iTunes with it, asked for money for player to do fullscreen. Plugin STILL can't do "fullscreen" via right click menu, unlike Real Networks. The download is HUGE and Windows Users _HATE_ bundled software and getting asked for mail.

There comes Flash: http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash explains all. Around 2 MB, no mail asked, ActiveX people can even get it auto downloaded, insanely multiplatform, can do fullscreen with a click of mouse in web page.

The answer to Flash would be Silverlight? That is a windows only thing. Half working plugin for OS X is just a player and we will see if "version 2" will have some "technical troubles" to make it late to OS X even as a plugin. I am betting on those "troubles" since MS is a company who will punish you in every opportunity for not running their OS. Adobe? They don't care, they release anything which they can make money or services over it.

"the iPhone isn't powerful enough to run flash properly. Too bad."

How ironic that just yesterday it was revealed that Spore and Super Monkey ball was coming to iPhones and the author was questioning if the iPhone was on par with the Sony PSP by saying: "Does this bring the iPhone up to DS and PSP levels?". And here, just a day later, the iPhone can't play Flash video while the PSP easily plays Flash.

Guess this announcement answered that question: No, the iPhone is not a Sony PSP killer. Not even equals.

Quicktime is slow on PCs. Flash is slow on the iPhone. What's the pattern here? Tasks like video decoding can take a lot of CPU, and if an implementation hasn't been optimized (which is usually the case if it grew up on a completely different platform), it won't run well there.

Flash is so tied to x86(-32), Adobe still hasn't even released a 64-bit version of it. Why is it a surprise that it doesn't run that well on the iPhone's 620 MHz ARM? Adobe says the minimum hardware requirements are:
  - Windows: Pentium II 450 MHz
  - Mac OS: PPC G3 500 MHz, or Core Duo 1.33 GHz
  - Linux: 800 MHz

It looks like Adobe's spent years optimizing the heck out of Flash Player for Win32/x86, and also Mac/PPC. Why is it surprising that an ARM CPU (with approximately the same clock speed as the minimum CPU on its highly-optimized platforms) can't run Flash very well yet?

I'm sure if we give Adobe engineers 10 more years, they can have it running on a slow ARM chip just fine. Until then, Steve's right: Flash isn't right for the iPhone. In other words (though Steve wouldn't phrase it this way), it would suck as much as Quicktime Player on Windows 95!

Here you go

For the record, I just got rid of my (non iphone) smartphone to buy a cellphone that was primarily a cell phone. I don't own any apple computers, or even an ipod. I'm not an apple fanboy. That said:

Working for a large company in the software industry, it's refreshing to see someone actually opt out of having another bullet point on their feature list to keep the integrity of their product. Having flash perform badly on their phones may bump up their sales by 20% in the quarter when the youtube fanatics hear about it, but it'll hurt them not too long after when they realize that the feature they bought it for works poorly. I know that my company would have much better quality products if we thought beyond the next quarter or two's marketing plan.

And to the people who rib apple for having created a device that won't run flash... Let's look at the minimum system requirements for the current version of Linux flash:

Modern processor (800MHz or faster) 512MB of RAM, 128MB of graphics memory
with a *recommended*
Intel Pentium 4 2.33GHz processor (or equivalent) 128MB of RAM 64MB of VRAM

Almost a gigahertz processor and half a gig of ram? This would have bumped everything but the bleeding edge off the map 10 years ago on processor speed and ram alone, and 128MB of graphics memory? Forget about it... and the recommended stats (which for some reason are lower than the minimum system requirements in RAM and VRAM... http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/productinfo/systemreqs/ maybe the low processor speed requires more mem?) on processor speed exclude many desktops sitting in homes today.

This is a CELL PHONE people! :)

Maybe on a half-technical cell phone review site i'd expected the reactionary "I can't believe they don't support flash" attitude as if they were just being lazy about it, but on a website where supposedly technical people understand the actual limitations that they run into with this stuff, come on.

The most recent version of Flash for Linux (9,0,115,0), the one that introduced "real" fullscreen mode support, is horrible. The older one (9,0,48,0) offers much better performance, at least for me. Personally I had to downgrade to that version, and lock the Flash version so that Ubuntu wouldn't push the latest one for me anymore.

It's quite strange really, there are a lot of complaints about this under the release announcement on the official Linux Flash Blog - and yet, it seems like this huge problem is just completely ignored. Pretty much everyone seems to get much worse performance with the latest Flash.

I assume that's Flash Lite, which (as I understand it) is not the same as the general Flash you get on the internet. It's specifically designed and optimised for mobile applications.

bullshit.
there is flash for windows mobile, palm (sony clie) and symbian os (a list of supported handsets). those devices have much weaker cpus than the iphone.

The scenario they seem to be enabling for SVG is inline SVG with HTML content (not XHTML). This means that you can install the Adobe SVG Viewer and have it render the inline SVG within the HTML page. Unfortunately it seems like there may be some implementation issues with it (possibly preventing the xlink namespace within the SVG). See the now-available whitepaper and the discussion here

Oh? http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Astro

Not only does FlashPlayer 10 have 2D/3D acceleration, but also supports gpu's. Search youtube for Flash Player Astro for videos of it in action - its pretty cool.

It already is.

It's worth noting, since the parent didn't, that the Adam and Eve libraries (don't know if that includes Eve2) are opensource as part of the "Adobe Source Libraries". Adobe has quite a few other opensource projects as well.

It's worth noting, since the parent didn't, that the Adam and Eve libraries (don't know if that includes Eve2) are opensource as part of the "Adobe Source Libraries". Adobe has quite a few other opensource projects as well.

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:AIR

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=10&platform=unix

Up until now, Adobe hasn't done much in terms of porting its applications to Linux, ...only .... Flash. ... the company has announced a Linux port of AIR, its web application development software...

Wow :)... Few corrections:

1) Flex Builder has had a public alpha for Linux for some time now.

2) There's Adobe Acrobat for Linux/Solaris/Unix

3) Most of the servers Adobe offers, like ColdFusion and Flash Media Streaming servers are available for Linux/Unix.

4) Adobe AIR isn't a web application development environment of any sort... that's completley messed up. It's the runtime component of a connected desktop app platform that supports HTML/CSS/JS/PDF/Flash content.

5) Macromedia (now part of Adobe) has made attempts to commercialize Dreamweaver/Flash/Freehand on Linux before utilizing Wine-compatible releases, but there was no enough demand to pay the bills, so the project was canned. I have the feeling they'll be trying this with selected Adobe CS applications again within 24 months, but it'll be expensive, so the market should show enough demand, and put their money where their mouth is, this time.

Up until now, Adobe hasn't done much in terms of porting its applications to Linux, ...only .... Flash. ... the company has announced a Linux port of AIR, its web application development software...

Wow :)... Few corrections:

1) Flex Builder has had a public alpha for Linux for some time now.

2) There's Adobe Acrobat for Linux/Solaris/Unix

3) Most of the servers Adobe offers, like ColdFusion and Flash Media Streaming servers are available for Linux/Unix.

4) Adobe AIR isn't a web application development environment of any sort... that's completley messed up. It's the runtime component of a connected desktop app platform that supports HTML/CSS/JS/PDF/Flash content.

5) Macromedia (now part of Adobe) has made attempts to commercialize Dreamweaver/Flash/Freehand on Linux before utilizing Wine-compatible releases, but there was no enough demand to pay the bills, so the project was canned. I have the feeling they'll be trying this with selected Adobe CS applications again within 24 months, but it'll be expensive, so the market should show enough demand, and put their money where their mouth is, this time.

Up until now, Adobe hasn't done much in terms of porting its applications to Linux, ...only .... Flash. ... the company has announced a Linux port of AIR, its web application development software...

Wow :)... Few corrections:

1) Flex Builder has had a public alpha for Linux for some time now.

2) There's Adobe Acrobat for Linux/Solaris/Unix

3) Most of the servers Adobe offers, like ColdFusion and Flash Media Streaming servers are available for Linux/Unix.

4) Adobe AIR isn't a web application development environment of any sort... that's completley messed up. It's the runtime component of a connected desktop app platform that supports HTML/CSS/JS/PDF/Flash content.

5) Macromedia (now part of Adobe) has made attempts to commercialize Dreamweaver/Flash/Freehand on Linux before utilizing Wine-compatible releases, but there was no enough demand to pay the bills, so the project was canned. I have the feeling they'll be trying this with selected Adobe CS applications again within 24 months, but it'll be expensive, so the market should show enough demand, and put their money where their mouth is, this time.

Up until now, Adobe hasn't done much in terms of porting its applications to Linux, ...only .... Flash. ... the company has announced a Linux port of AIR, its web application development software...

Wow :)... Few corrections:

1) Flex Builder has had a public alpha for Linux for some time now.

2) There's Adobe Acrobat for Linux/Solaris/Unix

3) Most of the servers Adobe offers, like ColdFusion and Flash Media Streaming servers are available for Linux/Unix.

4) Adobe AIR isn't a web application development environment of any sort... that's completley messed up. It's the runtime component of a connected desktop app platform that supports HTML/CSS/JS/PDF/Flash content.

5) Macromedia (now part of Adobe) has made attempts to commercialize Dreamweaver/Flash/Freehand on Linux before utilizing Wine-compatible releases, but there was no enough demand to pay the bills, so the project was canned. I have the feeling they'll be trying this with selected Adobe CS applications again within 24 months, but it'll be expensive, so the market should show enough demand, and put their money where their mouth is, this time.

You don't have to. Both Adobe Air runtime and SDK are going to be free (as in beer).

Flash has more and more accessibility support, but PDF is the Page Description Format. It's meant for print output and says nothing about the meaning of the contents of the document, just how they are supposed to look on the screen and on the page.

Um, PDFs can be made just as accessible as HTML documents, and Adobe's PDF tools have good integrated support for assistive technologies built in.

PDF accessibility is a lot like HTML accessibility; you have to know what you're doing to make it happen, but you can make it happen.

Jobs is a better example of vendor lockin - he wants everything as a disposable appliance.

It's almost impossible to find a large software company with multiple products that doesn't have some open source offerings, however, even if their main products are primarily closed source. Some examples are Apple, Microsoft [also see Codeplex], Adobe and Oracle.

Probably the best example I can think of for closed source is game companies like EA, Vivendi (Blizzard), etc. Carmack and Id are the exception, not the rule in that industry.

I don't know if I can agree with it being easier. While there is facilities to do so (using Flash as my reference), reading over the Flash 8 Accessibility Design Guidelines documentation from Adobe has provided some interesting results. A lot of these things are the same as practices used in (x)html/css and I don't know if one would perform better than the other. What I do know is that if a site is designed with accessibility in mind, everyone wins. It is very apparent that the designer/developer MUST be well informed/trained to get these issues resolved. As an example, I took a Flash 8 training course (at University) about a year ago, and accessibility was never mentioned. NOw this seems more like a problem with the school, but how many other courses and schools have the same issue? I think what it really comes down to is what your preferences are as a deployment platform, and how you can do the best job to get you product accessible to everyone. It is nice to finally know that these products do support some level of accessibility.

Considering both technologies have no viable free alternative yet, the competition is a very good thing. Consider that, in three years, Adobe Flex has gone from a $29,000 piece of software to one that is on the verge of being released (partially) as open source. Would this have happened without Microsoft giving away their competing technology?

I agree, right tool for the job. The Gimp is installed by default on most distros, making it great for a quick job like adding a caption to a picture or something. Sure, some people like the interface, others don't. But a lot of people I've known have been able to figure it out, and it's great for them for small tasks.

Now yes, there are a lot of things for which you need PS. If Google wants to help PS users make the switch to Linux while improving Wine in the process, I too am for it.

The entire Creative Suite would be nice too, but I'm not sure it's going to happen unless either Wine makes some big advances (to handle things like Premiere smoothly) or Adobe decides to have a change of heart.

Actually, on that note, to see those programs ported we could try to contact Adobe. I mean, they might do something if enough people bother them, though there's a chance it's happening already.

C++ versus C perhaps? I don't see Gimp devs going the C++ way for such a core part as the image manipulation library. GEGL uses glib and a bunch of other pieces that were designed to work nicely with gtk+. That, and GEGL predates Adobe opensourcing GIL (although it was nearly dead for a long time).

Pity, actually - from what the GIL site says, it seems to be quite an impressive piece of software.

Adobe Kuler is a nice one as well, though it requires Flash and an Adobe login in order to save the palettes that you create.

• Pick a font. 1 font. Verdana and Georgia are nearly ubiquitous. When in doubt, helvetica.
• Use the header and paragraph tags.
• Adobe has a great site where designers share color schemes. Pick one you like from there. http://kuler.adobe.com/
• cross your eyes just enough so your page is blurry. If you get the feeling that if it was a picture on your wall you would want to straighten it, adjust the look until you don't.
• Make sure navigation is usable in the absence of CSS, Javascript and flash.
• Keep in mind that most humans can only keep track of 5-9 things at a time. Try to keep navigation options, sections and content bits within or below that range on a given page.
• Don't be afraid of blank space.
• on a lightness scale of 1 to 10, keeping text and backgrounds 5 values apart makes reading easy.
• Try to have at least 2 ways to get around the site... like a primary nav might also be accompanied by a footer nav and search.
• Keep it simple. Clutter is ugly.
• All you need is a text editor, an image editor, s/ftp client and a browser. You'll have to learn whatever spiffy web page program you'd buy, why not learn to hand code instead? It's cheaper and better.

Add rounded corners, drop shadows, glassy reflections and gradients everywhere - and you're done!

Seriously,

Tons of good gallery sites, visit them. Use Adobe's Kuler. Finally, read this basic book: The Non-Designer's Design Book by Robin Williams.

And like someone else said - a boring site is better than an ugly one. So don't try to be a hero.

Actually they are related. None of them is a subset of the other.

Feel like digging into this?

http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/ps/index_specs.html
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html

Actually they are related. None of them is a subset of the other.

Feel like digging into this?

http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/ps/index_specs.html
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html

Along comes the internet, and decent PC only games like Doom.

You know, well actually you probably don't, but 10 years ago a statement like that would really have amused a lot of people I knew then seeing as how they said Macs were only good for playing games. I'd get into debates with them about what Macs, and Amigas, were capable of. There were plenty of business apps for Macs but if you still weren't convinced Macs could also run Windows and any Windows program they wanted. As for the Amigas, they could not only run Amiga software but they could also run both Mac and Windows software as well. Using Apple ROM the Amiga would run Mac OS and with an addon card they could run DOS/Windows.

The postive feed back loop gets stronger, pushing traditional Mac developers to switch to PC only releases. Adobe follows suit,

Excuse me but Adobe still releases software, including Creative Suite 3 for Macs. Looking at system requirements CS3 runs on both PPC and Intel Macs. Hundreds if not 1000s of programs are still available for Macs, some of them only come with Mac versions. While not as many titles as there are for Windows, I can find a lot of software for Macs, in brick and mortar stores and online.

Oh yeah - it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to thrown Solitaire into Leopard either.

Apple has more than 700 games Mac users can download, including Solitaire. You know now that I think about it when I used Windows and Linux I spent maybe a quarter of the tyme I was using my PCs playing games, but I haven't spent 1 minute playing any game on my Mac in the 5 months I've had it. I didn't even know chess was on it. There it is, in the application folder, along with MS Office 2004 for Mac test drive.

Along comes the internet, and decent PC only games like Doom.

You know, well actually you probably don't, but 10 years ago a statement like that would really have amused a lot of people I knew then seeing as how they said Macs were only good for playing games. I'd get into debates with them about what Macs, and Amigas, were capable of. There were plenty of business apps for Macs but if you still weren't convinced Macs could also run Windows and any Windows program they wanted. As for the Amigas, they could not only run Amiga software but they could also run both Mac and Windows software as well. Using Apple ROM the Amiga would run Mac OS and with an addon card they could run DOS/Windows.

The postive feed back loop gets stronger, pushing traditional Mac developers to switch to PC only releases. Adobe follows suit,

Excuse me but Adobe still releases software, including Creative Suite 3 for Macs. Looking at system requirements CS3 runs on both PPC and Intel Macs. Hundreds if not 1000s of programs are still available for Macs, some of them only come with Mac versions. While not as many titles as there are for Windows, I can find a lot of software for Macs, in brick and mortar stores and online.

Oh yeah - it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to thrown Solitaire into Leopard either.

Apple has more than 700 games Mac users can download, including Solitaire. You know now that I think about it when I used Windows and Linux I spent maybe a quarter of the tyme I was using my PCs playing games, but I haven't spent 1 minute playing any game on my Mac in the 5 months I've had it. I didn't even know chess was on it. There it is, in the application folder, along with MS Office 2004 for Mac test drive.

Oh, so I guess nobody else's shit stinks, right?

Looks like most of the issues are fixed by this released today. http://www.adobe.com/support/documentation/en/aftereffects/Adobe_After_Effects_CS3_8_0_2_Read_Me.pdf

There is no evidence that this is related to DRM. Quicktime is a very large sub-system of OS X after all, and I understand that DRM is only at the application level, not the OS level (ie it's not in the system's Quicktime layer).

Regardless, since Adobe released an update a few days ago this seems not to be a problem at Apple's end. Adobe's released indicates either that they used undocumented API behaviour (and have now fixed it) or that Apple changed the APIs in an expected manner and Adobe quickly released the patch.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=13&platform=Macintosh

Apple make shiny things for fashion victims
That's right up there with "Linux is only a server OS" and "Windows is for DOS apps and games only" as far as bad stereotypes go. Maybe you're upset at Apple right now, but that doesn't make your ridiculous post accurate, true or even logical.

But it's time to admit that Apple are just as much coprporate MP/RI-AA whores as MS.
Are Apple just as bad as Microsoft? Well, we see a few screw-ups here and there, some DRM in iTunes but no actual evidence of this apart from the dogma of some forum posters. You want it to be true, that's clear. Got anything real to back up that throw-away comment, or is it just more hot air? You know, something like adding DRM to non-DRM music that places limits on it that weren't present when originally sold (Zune music sharing), something that actually limits users in some way.

I can stand anti-fanbois even less than fanbois. Both groups define themselves by their relationship with a company to the exclusion of logical thought. Slashdot brings out so many of both camp that reading threads is sometimes like rubbing lemon juice into a papercut.