Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Photoshop Graces Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on from the windows-is-better-for-graphics-anyway dept.

cpk0 writes "Well, we finally have Photoshop on Mac OS X. Now that must have been one heck of a year over at Adobe, cause this piece of software is pretty elegent. Even on my iMac 600 it's pretty swift and smooth. There's no official Adobe press release yet, but there's a VersionTracker page for it, and that makes it official enough for me."

62 comments

  1. Elements by TwitchCHNO · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's linkage for those w/ out $500+ to spend on image editing software.

    Adobe CEO on PDF, Mac OS X, 'Premiere Elements,' more

    Yeah I know gimp is free, blah blah OSS or die, blah blah.

    Seriously folks I like Photoshop, & Elements is functional enough for my needs (No pre-press support) - definaltey worth the $100 (IMHO)

    --
    ___________________________
    I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
    1. Re:Elements by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't mind trying this out. Right now, I run Gimp through XDarwin, and it works for my needs, which are pretty basic (simple banners, adding text to pictures, etc).

      I wouldn't mind something like a Photoshop Lite to see how it works, then if I got powerful, I could pay for the full version later.

      --
      52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
    2. Re:Elements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You definitely need a spell-checker.

  2. New Features by dthable · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I enjoyed some of the user comments about the lack of new features in the software. How's this for a new feature, it runs under a stable OS without using the error prone Classic envrionment. I would be willing to put up the cash even if they just ported Photoshop 6 to OS X.

    1. Re:New Features by Petrox · · Score: 1

      No new features? It now has spell check and a healing tool (try it, and you'll never want to go back to Photoshop 6 again). Sensible features, not bloat. Nice work Adobe!

      --
      sig my booty, check my website
    2. Re:New Features by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      How's this for a new feature, it runs under a stable OS without using the error prone Classic envrionment.

      That's the ONLY reason I bought it. We just got a new G4, and if only Quark were 'modern', I could dump Classic mode entirely.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    3. Re:New Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny though that Adobe all along claimed that it would not introduce a new version of Photoshop just to make it OSX compatible, it had to fit into their upgrade timeline, at which time they would implement the planned features for the next release. That was their claim as to why it was taking so long.

      I havent seen anything so far that makes this a 1.0 release. this should be called 6.1 or 6.5 for OSX.

  3. Re:Can you say Layer Styles? by jasonwileymac.com · · Score: 1

    Sorry, GIMP is great, but it's not great enough.

  4. Re:Homos have taken over Adobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention all those straight ministers creating kiddie porn. Get a fucking life, idiot.

  5. finally by dewhite · · Score: 1

    This should finally push a lot of hold-outs over the upgrade edge. I don't care what anybody says, I think adobe did this to make sure everyone knew they weren't apple's bitch...

    --
    -dewhite
  6. I've been using it for a while. by EnVisiCrypt · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been using a, erm, beta copy for a while, and it's been excellent. I've been waiting for the official version to come out so I could ante up my $45,000,000 dollars. Seriously though, it seems rock solid, and the feature set has grown, albeit modestly.

    I particularly like the "healing" tool. It works much better than the cludgy old cloning tool, as the healing tool takes shadows, tone and the whole 9 into consideration when cloning bits. It's quite a tool, and my favorite addition since the magnetic lasso.

    Did I mention it's stable? I hated (HATED!) running ps6 in classic mode on OS X. Now, I really don't have any OS 9 apps left now that PS7 has left the gate.

    In my opinion, if you own a previous version the low upgrade cost is well worth it at $149. If you don't, pay the $609 and get on the train. Or better yet, get the web collection and get Livemotion, Illustrator and Photoshop for $999.

    --


    *everything* is Orwellian to cats.
    1. Re:I've been using it for a while. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hate to say this, but you don't need to own a prior version to use the upgrade. if you go to their ftp site and download the demo version of either image ready or photoshop (image ready is a smaller download), it will see those as a previous version and install perfectly.

    2. Re:I've been using it for a while. by Pituritus+Ani · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm as much of a copyright infringer as the next guy, but if you're going to circumvent the upgrade check, you're running an illegal copy anyway, so why not just keep your money? Also, won't Adobe refuse to register an upgrade that it can't tie to a prior sale?

      --

      Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag

  7. Not yet in Apple Retail Stores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The two Virginia Apple stores do not yet have PS 7 in stock as of 5/15/02. They have no idea when to expect it, either.

  8. Ugh. Still bundled w/ ImageReady. by realgone · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ah, good ol' ImageReady, the Cousin Oliver of the Adobe Bunch; no one really wants him hanging around, but no one has the heart to tell the lil' feller to leave.

    Actually, from reading Adobe's product page, you'd think all of ImageReady's features had finally been folded into its parent app, seeing as there's no mention of IR anywhere. It was only after reading this MacCentral article that I realized the unwelcome guest was back yet again. Ugh.

    For anyone who does a lot of web work in Photoshop, having to jump back and forth between the two apps is both an inconvenience and a resource hog, particularly since they duplicate many of each other's features. (So much so that the only time I fire up ImageReady these days is to bang out an animated GIF. Everything else can be done better by hand -- image slicing, rollovers -- or in Photoshop itself.)

    All that said, of course I'm going to upgrade; the OS X support alone is worth it. (Photoshop and Flash were my last real reasons for running OS 9 day-to-day.)

    1. Re:Ugh. Still bundled w/ ImageReady. by Cire · · Score: 1

      I agree, it would be GREAT if they put some of ImageReady's features into PhotoShop... but since they haven't, I'll still use IR. I think the way it handles saving as jpg, and slices (including optimization) is still much better than PS.

      Cire

  9. Finally... by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

    I don't need to start up Classic anymore by
    default. Photoshop was the last major app I needed
    OS 9 for. This is what decent number of the hold-
    outs have been waiting for, I'd bet. (Not all,
    mind you. I know of a few people who object to OSX
    on entrenched usability issues.) Now, if they'd
    just give us spring-loaded folders...

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    1. Re:Finally... by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 1

      Spring-loaded folders are almost certain to appear in 10.2.

    2. Re:Finally... by dar · · Score: 1

      What's a spring-loaded folder?

      --
      My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
    3. Re:Finally... by Surlyboi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spring loaded folders open up when you drag a file
      over them and then close behind you when you drag
      that file into a sub-folder. No unnecessary windows
      left open in your wake, less desktop clutter.

      Neat little feature. It was introduced in 9 and
      hasn't yet made its debut in X. Sure you could just
      as easily use the column view and bypass the need
      for them entirely, but I'm old and set in my ways...

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    4. Re:Finally... by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      its' a great feature that first showed up in 8.5 or 9.0 (can't remember which) where you can take a item (folder, file, whatever) and hold it over a folder. After a few seconds it would open up the new foldeer to let you procede.

      And if my memory of 9 is still working you can then move the file out the window to go back down a level.

      It was very useful for moving files all over the system. For some reason a lot of people loved it to no end. I never really used it much, and they have been crying for this for over a year and a half now.

      But X does need this to make moving files all over the system easier in any of the 3 view formats. Cutting and Pasting files is so winblowz..

    5. Re:Finally... by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 1

      It showed up in 8.5, and I don't think it ever got additional features after that.

      While cutting and pasting files may not be your thing, copying and pasting files is rather nice.

  10. WTF are you talking about?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen some strange rants on /. but your paranoia takes the cake.

  11. Quark is all that remains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, now Quark is the final remaining piece before publishing folks can finally stop using classic. I won't ever convince the long time Quark users to switch to anything else. I don't even want any new features from Quark (except multiple undos). I just want it running on OS X, native.



    This is such a gorgeous implementation of truely essential software (PS 7). I didn't mind the wait at all. Seriously, do people mind waiting for a year for really great software, or getting a POS in a few months. Personally, I'd rather let the developers make a fast, production-stable release than get some bloated Freehand 10, Netscape 6 junk.

    1. Re:Quark is all that remains... by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering that Quark's put out two versions in something like 8 years, I wouldn't hold out hope for them to bother with an OS X port. Hell, their last release, almost a year after OS X was released, still isn't OSX native.

      We're looking at Adobe InDesign right now. Seems like Adobe clued in that Pagemaker couldn't cut it, so they started over, and boy is InDesign nice. It can even import Quark documents perfectly (better than Quark can, IMO), exports as PDF (and does it well, unlike Canvas :/), and so on. It's really a nice package, and I would suggest downloading the demo and playing with it. The person who does all of our instruction manual design was sold in 2 minutes.

      --Dan

    2. Re:Quark is all that remains... by mkelley · · Score: 1

      I have to second that. One thing that wasn't mentioned is that you can layout PSD files without converting those to EPS or other formats. I can import PageMaker and Quark and ship it off to a publisher without a complaint. Quark is horrid and I really hope more people make the move to InDesign.

      --

      m.kelley
      life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
    3. Re:Quark is all that remains... by jasonwileymac.com · · Score: 1

      There is a great article in Macworld this month comparing the two. I ditched Quark all together when ID 2 came out, and I don't miss it.

    4. Re:Quark is all that remains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried InDesign and it is no replacement for Quark. Nor is Illustrator for FreeHand.

      QuarkXPress, FreeHand, Photoshop still is the unbeaten program suite for layout when it comes to terms of speed, usability and interface design.

      Too bad Quark does not offer OSX support yet and FreeHand X does not feel very native in OSX.

  12. Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by daviddennis · · Score: 2

    I have to admit, I find it amusing at times that people protest like crazy about Microsoft the monopoly, but don't say anything about Adobe, which has at least as commanding a presence in graphic arts as Microsoft has in the OS market.

    Perhaps it's because people actually LIKE Adobe stuff?

    Naaawwww ... that would be too simple :-).

    (Okay, this doesn't disturb me at all, actually, but it does make me laugh. Maybe if Microsoft was actually NICE to its customers and partners, it would do better in the PR wars.)

    D
    (Who has willingly spent over $1,000 with Adobe in the past year).

    1. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by singularity · · Score: 1

      The thing is that Adobe has not really used its monopoly to move into other markets where it does not have a monopoly.

      The difference between "having a monopoly" and "abusing your monoply" is all the difference in the world.

      I am still using GraphicConverter, which is even bundled with new Macs now, for my admittedly-limited graphics needs.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    2. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. They're good people. They only have foreign nationals hauled away from security conferences in chains when they expose fatal flaws in their products.

    3. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by pressman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Adobe really doesn't have a monopoly of any sort. Sure, Photoshop is THE dominant leader in the field of image editing programs. However, it is the leader because it offers a set of features that no other application comes close to matching. However, Adobe does not wield their dominance in the field of image editing to crush competition or create a barrier to entry in the market. Many people use the GIMP and Graphic Converter. The Macromedia diehards use FireWroks, but for the life of me I'll never understand why.

      In terms of Adobe's target market as a whole, they have a lot of competition. Quark and Macromedia really give them a run for their money. Illustrator leads the pack for vector graphics, but Freehand is nipping at it's heels. Quark XPress singlehandedly destroyed PageMaker and Adobe was forced to design a better program, InDesign. Even though it is easily the better program of the two, it is having a difficult time penetrating the market that XPress has dominated for so long. Real, honest competition from a determined and strong competitor is the only reason that we have InDesign now. Freehand keeps getting better with each rev and consequently Adobe has to make Illustrator that much better just to retain their lead.

      Macromedia has Dreamweaver which is hands down the leader in visual web page layout. Adobe has GoLive which has improved over the years and offers some features that Dreamweaver doesn't, but still has yet to garner a large market share despite being the leader some 5 years ago.

      Macromedia has Flash. Adobe has LiveMotion. Although, in many ways, LiveMotion is easier to use, Flash is still the 800 pound gorilla of the web/vector animation market.

      Adobe has Premiere for prosumer level video editing. Suddenly Apple comes out with Final Cut Pro (3 in particular) and just blows Adobe out of the market. Now there's Cinema Tools! Oh yeah, and then there are Avid and Media100!

      Adobe has AfterEffects which is doing quite well, but has to compete with products from Discreet and Nothing Real (now folded into Apple.) Essentially, AfterEffects is relegated to the prosumer level again and must improve with each rev.

      Anyone remember Persuasion? Fabulous presentation software that was totally crushed by PowerPoint.

      So, yeah, Adobe is a huge company with a near monopoly of the graphics market, but they are besieged on all sides by fierce competitors and if they get complacent for a single version of their applications, a large chunk of their market can be taken from them. I continue to use Adobe products and willoingly fork out large sums of hard earned cash because their products are so comp[elling. However, I have given up on PageMaker altogether in favor of Quark and am waiting for InDesign to be a bit more polished before I start using it as a regular publishing tool.

      I'm sure the people involved in developing Premiere are more than a little pissed at Apple right now. I know I will never willingly go back to Premiere ever again... not after using FCP 3!

      --
      Pooty tweet
    4. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Network effects give them some insulation from competition. That's most easily shown with Quark; many people now consider InDesign superior, but it's tough to argue with Quark's dominance in the printing market, because of the cooperation you need with printers, most of who only have Quark.

      The same is true of Photoshop. Once you've learned their keyboard equivalents, secret workarounds and the like, you have an enormous investment in the product and are unlikely to switch unless a competitor enormously raises the bar. I know that I tried a few different photo editing programs in an effort to avoid Classic, and none of them felt as right as Photoshop. They had all the functions of Photoshop, but, well, they weren't Photoshop.

      Another big advantage of Adobe is that they still include old-fashioned paper manuals with their products. That's enormously appealing to me; you get something tangible for your $150-600. Almost nobody does that anymore, and it's a darn shame.

      It gives them the image of the Classy Software Company, and I think it's very much merited.

      Come to think of it, Final Cut Pro 3 comes with a few bricks worth of manuals. And you're right, once you've seen FCP, Premiere just plain doesn't feel right.

      D

    5. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by marktwain · · Score: 1

      Actually I presently have installed Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, and GoLive 6, all running under OS X (as of Monday). I wouldn't trust anything you read on Version Tracker. Their spiders sometimes pick up items not released (or ready to be released). And I have to like the three Adobe products mention. :-) They run great on Mac OS X and I have all three apps running under Classic and OS 9 (2 volumes, previous versions), along with Adobe PageMill which I used to replace my old BBEdit, html hard coded, web stuff I used to create web sites before PageMill shipped in about 1995. All three of the Adobe apps mentioned run great under OS X. And I run my servers now under Darwin BSD and Apache, with all html work done with Adobe GoLive 6 as the leading player. The road goes ever on...... :-)

    6. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by dolanh · · Score: 2

      I'm not a macromedia diehard, but I've generally used fireworks over ImageReady because the end product was so much better. Better HTML, better Javascript, better image compression.

      --

      just my blog and pix

    7. Re:Photoshop: The beloved monopoly by pressman · · Score: 2

      I'm not a macromedia diehard, but I've generally used fireworks over ImageReady because the end product was so much better. Better HTML, better Javascript, better image compression.

      That's a very interesting point. Being a UI and usability designer, I have a hard time with Macromedia products in general. They make good products in general. Dreamweaver and Flash are irreplaceable, but Fireworks and Freehand I could do without. Illustrator and Photoshop more than meet my needs and I just plain find them easier to work with.

      I do do a lot of HTML coding, mostly in BBEdit and Dreamweaver, but all of my image editing is done in Photoshop and now I do a lot of it in Illustrator now that they have the "save for web" feature built in. Fireworks has always been counteruintuitive to me. But then again since I do no JavaScript whatsoever (other than simple Dreamweaver level stuff like rollovers), I don't need that technical end of an image editing app. Just raw usability and flexibility.

      Again, Firework's scripting level stuff can be a huge asset. For raw, multi purpose image editing though, I'm gonna stick with Photoshop.

      --
      Pooty tweet
  13. other unix like systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now that it's ported to a BSD based system, I wonder if they'll go ahead and port to other BSDs or linux

    1. Re:other unix like systems by sckevyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would be really nice if people would learn, that most of the OS X commerical apps, DO NOT TOUCH the bsd layer, nor require it to work.

      Photoshop for OS X, is Photoshop written for the OS X gui, namely Cocoa. It is not a 'bsd app'.

      As far as OS X being a BSD based system, perhaps you should go read a little bit more before you claim it's BSD based. It isn't. The kernel is mach, with Cocoa, Carbon and BSD running on top of it as a seperate layer.

      If OS X were BSD based, you wouldn't be able to unselect the BSD enviroment during the install =)

      kevyn

    2. Re:other unix like systems by sundip01 · · Score: 1

      prob not...my guess is that they just carbonized it and didn't rewrite any of the low-level code b/c it still runs on 9...

    3. Re:other unix like systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the OS X GUI is called, "Aqua". You can implement OSX-native apps that use Aqua using Cocoa, Carbon, or Java.. Photoshop is written using Carbon, not Cocoa.

    4. Re:other unix like systems by DarkRecluse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the Mac OS X subsystem is based mostly on FreeBSD 4.4...which you can see if you ever take a look at the header files within the Darwin CVS.

      What you think of as layers are actually Frameworks and shared libraries running on top of this subsystem. The subsystem is actually quite stripped down for a unix OS unless you install the Developer package from the Developer CD. The gui is just a Window Server slightly different than traditional XFree86 implementations.

      When you say that most apps don't require the subsystem you are partially correct, in that they are not required to be aware of it, but your OS would not be working if the subsystem was not in place....you may think it doesn't exist because it is hidden from the gui, but try booting without your /usr, /sbin, /private, and additional directories...hell, just try removing the symbolic link to /etc and see if your computers boots properly;)

      Apple has done a good job of hiding their necessity.

      --
      --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
    5. Re:other unix like systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photoshop uses the Carbon APIs - not Cocoa. In fact, it was Adobe that led the revolt against Apple to provide this Carbon API. Apple initially wanted Cocoa only (Rhapsody), but Adobe basically told Apple that they would not develop their products if a bridging API were not provided.

      Tom

  14. Nice . . . by Anonynnous+Coward · · Score: 1
    There's no official Adobe press release yet, but there's a VersionTracker page for it,

    That's nice, but I was hoping for a Tracker-Tracker page for it. Since after the DMCA wielding bastards had Dmitri arrested, it'll be a cold day in hell before Adobe sees another thin dime of my cash.

  15. Re:Can you say GIMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gimp is pretty good for whipping together some pics for your geocities page. no self respecting professional graphic artist would waste their time with it tho.

  16. Moralty vs Product Quality by daviddennis · · Score: 2

    Yes, that was a really sick thing to do; I agree.

    I'm not sure if the actual impact was intentional, and to give them credit, once they saw how seriously the government took the situation, they dropped the case. It was the government's decision to continue prosecuting.

    But that aside, this is an interesting test case to show that what many of us really hate about Microsoft is not its monopoly, or its bundling policies, or its bullying ways, but a combination of product quality problems(*) and persistent privacy invasions.

    If they'd made a wonderful operating system, I'm betting we wouldn't be nearly as mad at them as we are.

    Adobe has always made great products, and hopefully will always make great products. So we forgive them their monoply, and I'd say even their treatment of that unfortunate Russian.

    If it had been Microsoft, can you imagine the furor?

    D

    (*) Persistent rumours exist that Microsoft has improved its quality greatly and cleaned up its act. But in a couple of hours of creating a simple resume for a friend using the new MacOS X version of Word for Windows, I got it to crash. Lost a lot of work, too.

    1. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
      I'm not sure if the actual impact was intentional, and to give them credit, once they saw how seriously the government took the situation, they dropped the case. It was the government's decision to continue prosecuting.

      Possible, but it is equally possible that they brought this to the attention of the FBI, and then once it appeared that the FBI was going to pursue the case stopped endorsing the prosecution, so that they could wash their hands of it but still have it happen.

      Who knows what the real reason was.

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    2. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by Anonynnous+Coward · · Score: 1
      so that they could wash their hands of it but still have it happen.

      This is exactly what I think happened. They saw the bad PR rolling in, the people dishing on their stock on the investment weblogs, and realized they had a problem. Then they figured out they could have their cake, and eat it too, by walking away knowing full well that the FBI, wanting to increase funding to fight "cybercrime," would hang on like bulldogs.

      Sadly enough, it seems to have fooled much of the technically literate community. Or worse, not much of that community cares.

    3. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      The community cares, and has in fact worked hard to get him released.

      At the same time, the community also knows what company to go to to get great graphics software.

      For whatever reason, the computer biz is about cool products, not morality. Even Steve Jobs of Apple, the cool computer company, is known as a relentless perfectionist who can be staggeringly cruel to his employees. Do we care? No, we keep buying his products because, for better or for worse, he makes the best stuff.

      Same with Adobe.

      Harsh reality, but that's the way it works.

      On the other hand, can you see anyone using Adobe's secure PDF format or whatever the heck it was any time soon? They suffered a genuine defeat with the publicity; they shouldn't have done what they did, even from a pragmatic commercial viewpoint.

      D

    4. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by Anonynnous+Coward · · Score: 1
      The community cares, and has in fact worked hard to get him released.

      If that were true, Adobe's stock would be in the toilet from lack of sales. I agree that the community worked hard to get him released, but we seem to have given Adobe a pass. And if all it takes to be able to engage in wanton malicious prosecution and get by with it is "cool products," I guess there really is no community.

    5. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      But once he's released, the issue is moot as far as the community is concerned - no?

      D

    6. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by dalamcd · · Score: 1
      I know this is probably off-topic (although I think the topic has wandered pretty far at this point, anyway) and possibly the wrong place to ask, but--could someone post a link to whatever story it is you're talking about? I am utterly clueless, but keen to know. I just have no idea where to start looking.

      dalamcd

      --
      moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
    7. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not! The community needed to send, and did not send, a message to Adobe saying "Use the DMCA and die." The message Adobe received was "Use the DMCA, backpedal a little, get what you want, and we'll forgive you."

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    8. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Here you go:

      http://www.freesklyarov.org/
      http://www.wired.c om/news/politics/0,1283,50797,00 . tml
      http://www.boycottadobe.com/

      That should get you started.

      D

    9. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      So the only solution to this would have been to push them to the edge of bankruptcy?

      That doesn't seem realistic in the case of Adobe. Killing off the unit that sold the technology that got us in this mess would surely seem sufficient, no? If you're going to force Photoshop to die, you'll have a whole bunch of angry graphic artists crying for blood :-).

      Do you know the fate of the technology he reverse-engineered?

      D

    10. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by acceleriter · · Score: 1
      So the only solution to this would have been to push them to the edge of bankruptcy?

      Yes, that would have been an appropriate punishment, or at least the most appropriate one short of violence.

      That doesn't seem realistic in the case of Adobe. Killing off the unit that sold the technology that got us in this mess would surely seem sufficient, no? If you're going to force Photoshop to die, you'll have a whole bunch of angry graphic artists crying for blood :-).

      I'm sure such an attractive piece of property would prove irresistible for an enterprising capitalist or competitor who would want to take over that market. Photoshop wouldn't have died, though it might have been renamed to eliminate the taint of its prior assocaiation with Adobe. I'm sure the bloodlust of the graphic artists, along with their cash, would have kept the feature set available :).

      Do you know the fate of the technology he reverse-engineered?

      AFAIK, it's still available for sale, though not widely adopted. Same as before.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    11. Re:Moralty vs Product Quality by mr100percent · · Score: 2

      Well, according to the free capitalist market, Macromedia could use the opportunity to take marketshare with their own graphic app.

  17. Re:Can you say GIMP? by mkelley · · Score: 1

    most graphic shops want Photoshop skills and not PaintShop Pro or the GIMP skills. Walk into an ad shop and they'll laugh you out with those on your resume'. Just like having HotDog Pro when they're looking for Dreamweaver experience.

    --

    m.kelley
    life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
  18. Hopefully people will switch to In Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to a presentation given by Apple (on OSX) and Adobe about In Design 2 on OSX (I had to leave before Photoshop demo but I know that already.

    I used to be technical Director of a design company and we had 100 people who all use Quark, plus Illustrator and Photoshop. I am not a user of Quark, BUT I had with me my old systems manager who IS A HARDCORE user for many many years.

    Our view was that this is finally the time when he could start moving some users off Quark and onto In Design for the following reasons:

    1) Cost - to carry out the latest Quark upgrade is more expensive than buying In Design with the right dealer packages available (don't even start about Quark Passport editions).

    2) Most DESIGNERs (not artworkers) can hardly use Quark anyway properly. So teaching them In Design should be relatively painless - compared to next version of Quark, or even Illustrator, let alone OS X.

    3) Now most Bureaus will take In Design files as well as Quark, therefore no need to be locked in to Quark

    4) Much better native PDF support. Very important today as much proof work is done through PDF and Emailed round.

    5) SImilar structure as other key adobe applications (keyboard and methodology)

    6) Round trip Photoshop changes t speed workflow

    7) Exactly the same colour engine for all Adobe applications now means colour consistancy.

    I was impressed enough that now I may need to do some basic page layout I will invest in In Design personally, and my colleague will start to migrate some users across.

    This is probably the beginning of the end for Quark - who IMHO have manipulated their monopoly position for way too long are are going to pay the price.