Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop for OS X
MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"
Trying not to be flamebait, but could you please show me a Free Software project in the same category as Photoshop (read, Graphics app) that even come close to matching PS's feature set and usability. And No... GIMP isn't even in the same league as Photoshop. I have tried both and speak from experience. Thats not to say GIMP isn't a good program, because it is.
I understand that you value free software, and for good reason. But Photoshop is THE app for OSX, as far as Apple's core graphics market is concerned.
Give please at least give credit where credit is due.
I've played with it at work for about 15 minutes, they beta test, and it's easily as good as inn OS 9. They get an A.
PC users don't upgrade their OS's every time one particular app gets upgraded (although it helps).
To be fair, you're comparing apples and oranges. The last time the PC world saw such a tremendous shift in the capabilities of the base operating system was August 1995, when Windows 95 was released. After that, it's been incremenetal upgrades to the OS.
In late 1995, quite a lot of people were upgrading their applications (at least, the ones from MS) in order to take advantage of what Windows 95 offered. In this case, the particulars may be different, but the essence is the same: a lot of people want to upgrade their software to take advantage of what Mac OS X brings them.
I know hundreds of architects, contractors, engineers and so on that would switch instantly to Mac if it just had AutoCad.
Until then, we are stuck with PCs, because everyone uses AutoCad.
waiting...
> touting the same old obscure algorithm in Photoshop :-)
> PC users know better though. The truth is that the only
> valid metric of computer performance is Quake III frames per second.
As soon as Mac users can figure out how to make money playing Quake III as opposed to using Photoshop, I'm sure they'll be willing to switch their performance metrics.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
You don't have to consider using Photoshop if you're comfortable with GIMP.
However, you can consider this; without Photoshop, GIMP may not have been developed (the way it was), just as Killustrator-->Illustrator and GNUStep-->NeXTStep...
I'm not saying GIMP is a clone or anything, but that Photoshop created the market that GIMP lives in right now.
GPL Deconstructed
Companies, in general, want NOT to release their source code.
Companies do like people that are willing to PAY for software (as in advanced cash).
Desktop users want computers where programs INSTALL easily.
Desktop users want computers where hardware configuration is TRIVIAL
And that's why OSX is perfect for you. It addresses your needs. Of course, it doesn't address the need of people that need freedom and flexibility for EVERYTHING that runs under their computers. I don't use Linux because GIMP is better than Photoshop, i use it because GIMP has what i need and i know that GIMP will eventually beat Photoshop.
In some way, i think i use Linux because i feel i'm on the right side. Microsoft used my money to lock me into their OS and after doing that, all my money started funding them so they could lock me into more of their stuff (like Office). I don't like that and many companies are starting to feel this way too.
Note: this is only my opinion. Please disregard it completelly if you don't agree. It's ok and i understand it.
unfinished: (adj.)
OK, it's not news for nerds. It is, however, stuff that matters. It's driving the universe closer to a Unix v. Microsoft world by reducing the number of desktops running neither (classic Mac OS). Every desktop that goes OS X incrementally changes the calculation that all developers do when they start programming, who is my target audience and to what platforms do I code?
If Mac OS programmers tweak their code so that Cocoa apps they write run under GNUStep, that's a win for Linux. If traditional Unix vendors tweak their code so their stuff compiles and runs under OS X, that's a win for Apple. If Windows programmers conclude that the collective Unix world is once again large enough to start supporting it's a win for everybody in that world BSD and Linux included.
Get it now? It's important because it goes to market share, specifically desktop market share and the software development houses largely follow market share because they've got to pay the bills.
Apple is absolutely a software company. iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro, iPhoto, AppleWorks.
All *very* important to Apple's strategy. Without Apple's groundbreaking software, the hardware sales would be hurt quite a bit.
My neighbors bought iMacs for the house. They don't care about Photoshop. What sold them was the idea of iMovie and iTunes. That's what sells a ton of people.
Apple's a 60/40 hardware-software company, I'd say.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I'll echo an earlier response in pointing out that your mind already seems quite made up, between being proud of not owning a Mac and wondering why the story is slashdot-worthy. (Answer: Because it's news about the computer industry, like many other posts on slashdot.)
And if you absolutely must build your own PC, then no, don't get a Mac. If, on the other hand, you'd like an OS that lets you perform similar configuration at the software level, but still runs major consumer apps, OS X is a great choice.
Beyond that, when you're working in Photoshop or Word, you're not gonna notice a whole lot of significant differences between platforms. I share the view of a lot of Mac users that the user experience is better in a number of ways, but if you're happy with your Windows machines, no, there's probably no hugely compelling reason to switch, just as there's no real reason to be quite as anti-Mac as you seem to be.
because most mac users *hate* that "slow start".
the thought process is basically "why would i run photoshop in os x under emulation [ yes, that's the mindset] when i can run it natively under os 9?".
I have always loved Photoshop. It's still got a big one-up over Gimp and other free and non-free alternatives. However, I incist that products that include content protection must NOT gain any support from anyone. This is without regard to the other features in a package. I'm sure 99.9% of Photoshop users can do with version 7 that they can do with 5.5 just as easily... without giving up little chips of freedom.
If a content house wants to keep images/documents secure, there's plenty of software to do it (encrypted filesystems, secure OSes, etc.). Encrypting/password-protecting documents with proprietary software is not the answer and must not be acceptable.
Why bother.
You write, "I truly cannot understand what's so great about Macs." Then you state, "...there are only two [computers] I use regularly:" a Linux server and a win2K/winXP/linux desktop.
You should be able to answer your own question. You use an operating system (Linux) in preference to other options for a particular task (as a server) because you think it's best for that task. For every task you can think of, there is probably an os/app combination that you feel will be the best environment for you to accomplish that task.
Many people believe that the Macintosh is the best platform for a set of tasks. You don't claim to have used a Macintosh, or benefitted from the graphics friendly technology which is baked into that OS, yet you suggest that you're correct and they're wrong.
Perhaps the work that you're producing on a Win32 machine is better than that of your coworkers. How much of that is because of the operating system involved? Perhaps the answer for you is "none," and since the OS doesn't help you on your current platform, you assert that it won't be a factor on other platforms.
But what if, after the unavoidable learning curve of a new platform, you discovered that you were 10% more productive on a Macintosh, because of the design and technology of the OS? What if it were only 5%, or the improvement were as great at 15%? What is 10% more time worth to you?
You don't use a Windows server. Why not? Isn't the windows server Good Enough? Or did you want the Best Available Option? Did you arrive at that opinion by reading trade magazines? By listening to your coworkers? Or by direct experimentation and observation?
If you're using your Windows desktop and Win32 ports of your preferred applications because they're Good Enough, that's your prerogative, but at least recognize your stance. But if you are interesting in using the best tool for the job, it is self-limiting for you to dismiss the Mactinosh without seriously exploring the platform.
Your final two questions:
"what's the point?" and
"why is this story even slashdot worthy?"
should also be immediately obvious. Because the availability of Photoshop for Mac OS X will go a long way toward making or breaking the short term success of Mac OS X. Photoshop dominates its market, and its not a trvial market. This release will directly lead to increased sales for both Apple and Photoshop. In a time when many tech companies are struggling, Apple and Photoshop will post numbers that are better than their neighbors. This will translate into increased positive media attention, which will create a more receptive management, which will lead to more OS X Macs in your office.
One last question:
Why is it a source of pride that none of your home computers is an Apple?
And I would really like to drive a BMW M3.
If only I did not have to pay for it.
I mean, I can pick up a Honda Civic for under $20,000!
You obviously do not want to use OS X that badly if you are not willing to pay a slight premium for the machine to run it.
Every time I use the GIMP, I run into an odd quirk that invariable becomes a giant pain in the ass. The handling of layers is one such thing. As is selection handling. One of my big pet peeves is when things work and look closely like others, but don't do so consistently. If a UI or functionality looks or works a little like something already established, it better works a lot like it. Or it will be frustrating, make me angry, and will cause me to reject the whole thing (no matter how worthy it is.)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Sorry, this is probably a bit offtopic.. but it really irks me how people compare GIMP and Photoshop. GIMP is a cool program, don't get me wrong, but if you're doing any sort of serious image manipulation, it's not even close to Photoshop. There's a reason that Photoshop is the only program that anyone professionally considers for graphics manipulation.
Sure, GIMP is about as good as Photoshop 3.0. But keep in mind that Photoshop 3.0 was released about 7 or 8 years ago. GIMP is great if you're just going to stick with web graphics, but if you ever have to do any print quality stuff, you'll see why the Adobe line of software is so popular. Where Photoshop really starts to kick ass is with large files (>200 MB, yes, this size files are common, many people work with them on a daily basis.) GIMP would slow to an unusable crawl just trying to render the 15 or so layers, but Photoshop is so highly optimized that it doesn't even flinch. In fact, the main speed bottleneck in Photoshop is the hard drive, not the program. Photoshop is one of the few expensive pieces of software that I consider worth the price.
The moral of this story is that while yes, GIMP is sufficient for people's needs (read: web site graphics, basic file resizing type things, etc,) it's not in the same ballpark as Photoshop. It's not even playing the same game, and it's ludicrous to say that "GIMP will eventually beat Photoshop." If you think that, you've never really used Photoshop.
Why is it such a big news that Adobe finally decided to write a native version of Photoshop for OSX, but noone ever mentioned that Corel's Draw and PhotoPaint have been available for OSX quite some time now.
Because the professional graphics market that is key to Apple's success makes their living using Photoshop and was not even aware that Corel made a 'competing' product.
The GIMP has a chance to replace something like Photoshop Elements, which is a $99 "Photoshop Lite" for consumers and hobbyists, maybe in a few years if they want to do that, and if they port to Aqua (running in X Windows there is no chance to get the mainstream market that requires that level of graphics software). If they were to use iMovie and iPhoto and iTunes user interfaces as models, they could make a very popular app for anyone who doesn't do graphics for a living, all day long.
It would take the GIMP 10 years at least to get to where Photoshop 7 is right now. Plus, to get Photoshop pros to switch, they'd have to be able to open old Photoshop files perfectly. It's a lot to ask.