Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Pauses Work on 'Photoshop Killer'

daria42 writes "According to this article, Microsoft has paused development work on some parts of the pro graphics application it first released in beta back in June 2005. The problem? It appears the software giant doesn't see the application as a stand-alone product, but more of a companion piece to its Expression product line. Plus Vista needs to be released first."

212 comments

  1. PaintbrushShop by ExE122 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure the real problem is that they're trying to integrate it with windows so that windows won't work if you delete it...

    *cough* *explorer* *cough*

    I bet in the end, its just gonna be a fancy version of paintbrush

    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
    1. Re:PaintbrushShop by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm- what is funny is that MS has to fight the same kind of thing that keeps Windows entrenched. It is commonly argued that people stick with windows because it is what they know and what they are used to (I know I am overlooking the fact that it is included with almost every PC sold).
      Now MS is on the other end- I use Photoshop almost daily. I have to be honest- even if there was a program twice as good (however you measure twice as good) I would be hard pressed to give up a program I have used for a decade (Photoshop) and am used to. Even when I use Fireworks, I have some trouble, because the commands are different/located in different places...

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    2. Re:PaintbrushShop by Valacosa · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should wrap the entire thing within the display device context. Then technically, no monitor would work without the program installed!

      It's a good thing I don't work for Microsoft.

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    3. Re:PaintbrushShop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Remember DR DOS, Netscape? I expect that photshop will stop working with Windows pretty soon.

    4. Re:PaintbrushShop by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

      Thats an interesting point, even if it was sarcastic. I was an Apple guy until you could get Photoshop for Windows. ( I don't want to get into why, despite owning Apples since I was 10, I switched to PC- But it had a lot to do with PC games)
      It used to be that you pretty much had to have an Apple to do high end graphics. Now I know a ton of graphic designers who use Windows machines. That was unheard of when I was younger.

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    5. Re:PaintbrushShop by Uber+Banker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to be honest- even if there was a program twice as good (however you measure twice as good) I would be hard pressed to give up a program I have used for a decade (Photoshop) and am used to.

      Exactly, and this was recently cited as one of the reasons users will not switch to Lunix or other OSes, because their favourite app had not been ported. IMHO its bad news that MS have paused work on this, because it reduces the chance of Adobe getting annoyed and porting Photoshop to Lunix.

    6. Re:PaintbrushShop by Dan+Ost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Has Adobe ever given an official position about porting to Linux?

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    7. Re:PaintbrushShop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they pretty much opened up PS and PDF, though I don't know if that was a specific endorsement of linux in particular...

    8. Re:PaintbrushShop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember DR DOS, Netscape? I expect that photshop will stop working with Windows pretty soon.

      When did DR DOS ever not work with a released version of a Windows that was sold as a DOS GUI rather than as a non-DOS operating system? (Answer: never. The much-criticised anti-DR DOS code in Windows 3.0 only ever existed in beta versions, and was removed from the version that went on sale.)

      When did Netscape ever stop working with Windows? (Answer: never.)

      Oh, and DOS wasn't done till Lotus ran perfectly, to the extent that Lotus got given pre-release versions of MS-DOS to test their programs with, and any incompatibilities were treated by Microsoft as release-blocking critical bugs. Just so you know.

    9. Re:PaintbrushShop by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Remember DR DOS, Netscape? I expect that photshop will stop working with Windows pretty soon."

      Yeah, this is real +2 Interesting considering most of you are using FireFox and OpenOffice on your Windows machines.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:PaintbrushShop by GmAz · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I have used Photoshop since version 4. I still use Photoshop 7 because for what I do, I haven't seen a need to go to CS or CS2. But I will continue to use Photoshop.

      --
      Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
    11. Re:PaintbrushShop by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "Vista's Not Done Til' Photoshop Won't Run"

      That says it all, one would think.

    12. Re:PaintbrushShop by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      They released a 'beta' version of FrameMaker for Linux, then cancelled the product before a formal release. That's sort of an official position.

    13. Re:PaintbrushShop by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      I don't want to get into why, despite owning Apples since I was 10, I switched to PC- But it had a lot to do with PC games
      Just like everyone who buys the "Daily Telegraph"[1] only reads the sport pages.

      Note for our Leftponian readers: a somewhat right-wing UK newspaper.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    14. Re:PaintbrushShop by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Er, just calm down. Hey, what are you doing with that cha...

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    15. Re:PaintbrushShop by BrynM · · Score: 1
      Has Adobe ever given an official position about porting to Linux?
      No. Customers (especially high-end shops with a *nix production pipeline) have wanted it for a long time. The closest yet to an answer is an old Dvorak article in which he claims that the Adobe CEO holds a grudge against open source over GhostScript.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    16. Re:PaintbrushShop by ryusen · · Score: 1

      It's not just user familiarity they need to fight, it's Industry Backing. One of the reasons other products just can't compete with PS is because of the huge wealth of third party plugins for Photoshop. Until MS can get all of their support too, they can't kill PS.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    17. Re:PaintbrushShop by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      I'm sure the real problem is that they're trying to integrate it with windows so that windows won't work if you delete it...

      You do realize that Microsoft is only adding to their base OS what people want. People wanted an advanced web browser. And people want advanced image editing. Apparently, nobody wants Word.
    18. Re:PaintbrushShop by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      Remember DR DOS, Netscape? I expect that photshop will stop working with Windows pretty soon.

      That's actually not funny. We make Winimages, a graphics product of similar complexity to Photoshop. It's about special effects, animation, and high complexity image editing. It's been running on Windows since about 1992, and it's definitely not been a given that everything stays solid from one windows version to another. For instance, NT and RISC windows versions arbitarily befuddled some UI functions (font rotation and skew, for instance) and XP outright destroyed the consistancy of window metrics that spaced titlebars from client windows. Then there was the Win95 file dialog as compared to the Win98 and later file dialog which handled multiple file selection differently (but still insanely) and so on... and these are just off the top of my head. There are certainly many more.

      Microsoft is pretty annoying when it comes to maintaining compatability from one version of Windows to the next.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    19. Re:PaintbrushShop by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      A lot of people use firefox and open office on windows machines to maintain a similar work enviroment to the Linux workstations and some others do the same, to gain knowledge for when the switch operating systems.

      Adobe has done some stuff for Linux not much yet but it does take time for a successful port. As competition heats up from microsoft (perhaps microsoft is laying off so as not too push adobe too quickly onto Linux, each year counts for monopoly margins) and Linux gains traction, the photoshop port can't be too far off.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. The Cliché of "Killer" by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ok, so I'm a little tired of headlines like these:
    Microsoft Pauses Work on 'Photoshop Killer'
    The Latest iPod Assassination Attempt
    Sony's Revolution Killer?
    Microsoft's Sparkle a Flash Killer?
    Microsoft to Launch "Skype Killer"
    StarOffice 8 May Be MS Office Killer
    And the list goes on.

    So where does that leave the readers? I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing the word 'killer' used to describe a new product that aims to (hopefully) usurp the leading product in the market. That's it! Let's start using the word 'usurper' over and over to describe a product. It's hip, it generates hype, run with it!

    I'm fine with having my intelligence insulted when I read the comments. Hell, I'd even be fine with having low brow advertising on /.'s frontpage. What I'm not fine with is the editors being stupid enough to use clichés such as "killer" over and over and over again. Is this the 80's? Do we find one word and use it to describe everything? Did Roblimo just turn into Jeff Spicoli? Is anyone really naïve enough to think that an application will come along and "kill" Photoshop? For christ's sake, I use the Gimp 2.0 and I personally like it better than photoshop. On top of that, it's free. I alerted my band member to this application when he was making posters for a show. Now, he didn't pay for his version of photoshop but he still laughed when I suggested the Gimp 2.0 because he was too ignorant to try something new. I think you'll find this in a lot of graphical artists that if they have something that works (i.e. Macs, Photoshop, Intuos, etc.), they will stick with it until they die regardless of anything else that comes out. It's because that consumer base has a fatalistic attitude that different means worse.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good post, thanks for the cliche-killer.

    2. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I think you should read the word "killer" as mild sarcasm.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by TubeSteak · · Score: 1, Funny
      Microsoft Pauses Work on 'Photoshop Killer'
      The Latest iPod Assassination Attempt
      Sony's Revolution Killer?
      Microsoft's Sparkle a Flash Killer?
      Microsoft to Launch "Skype Killer"
      StarOffice 8 May Be MS Office Killer


      All of those are euphamisms for Chuck Norris

      Microsoft Pauses Work on 'Chuck Norris'
      Chuck Norris iPod Assassination Attempt
      Chuck Norris: Sony's Revolution Killer?
      Microsoft's Chuck Norris a Flash Killer?
      Microsoft to Launch "Chuck Norris"
      Chuck Norris May Be MS Office Killer

      Clichés taste good with a little bit of chocolate frosting :O)
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      killer-post!

    5. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by zlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I've used GIMP for webmastering and I found that the following features don't exist in Gimp but exist in Photoshop:
      - layer styles, including shadows. In Photoshop, you can add a shadow and change it any way you like in something like 5 mouse clicks. The shadow will change if the object changes. Now, Gimp doesn't have any stuff for making shadows at all. So, to make a shadow, you have to duplicate the layer, fill the duplicate with black (or any other color), and blur it. And of course if you draw something on the original layer, you'll have to delete the shadow and draw a new one.
      - save for web
      - photoshop has more filters, and many can be actually useful
      - shadows/highlight (first appeared in Photoshop CS)
      If you are doing simple photo editing (brightness/contrast, color levels, resize), Gimp or Krita or Gwenview or even ACDSee will suit you well. If you have never used Photoshop, you'll also have no difficulties in using Gimp.
      However when you switch from Photoshop to Gimp you'll be lacking lots of these small-but-useful features that make a 30 second task in Photoshop something like 10 minutes Googling when using Gimp.

    6. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Amonimous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You didn't grasp Microsoft's way of thinking.

      They really are very keen on doing killer apps. But don't be mistaken. They are pros, so they mean killer in the real sense, that is:
      through advanced secret programming techniques known only by MCKPs, their applications are able to conflict with others, thus killing them.

      The first killer app I remember killed DR-DOS.

    7. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Deep+Fried+Geekboy · · Score: 1

      No professional photographers I know (and I know a LOT) use GIMP because Linux doesn't have ubiquitous color management. Bzzt!

      --

      I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.

    8. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by kentrel · · Score: 1
      Exactly.

      For the /. editors everything is okay unless MS, Sony, or the Music Industry do it.

    9. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      I agree with eldavojohn. That's why 'Killer' is enclosed by quotation marks even though they weren't in the headline as it was originally submitted.

      I also agree about GIMP 2.0. It's my primary graphics program. I work almost entirely on the WWW, so it does everything I need. :)

    10. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      That post was killer, man.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    11. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he still laughed when I suggested the Gimp 2.0 because he was too ignorant to try something new

      Maybe he values getting work done than wanking over open source...
      Maybe he uses one of the thousands of commercial plugins...
      Maybe he needs CMYK support (hello? Posters mean print work!)...
      Maybe because a goat's ass has a better interface than the Gimp...

    12. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, deserve many +1 Funny moderations.

    13. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      The funny on that Chuck Norris thing ran out some time ago.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    14. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ballmer's gonna fucking kill you

    15. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Firewalker_Midnights · · Score: 1

      I agree that GIMP is a decent application, however it has several drawbacks which are mostly OS related (specifically it has a bad habit of eating memory and crashing quite a bit in Windows). While the features included with GIMP are comparable to photoshop, there are a few things also lacking.

      My main issue with the GIMP vs. Photoshop is not of toolsets or functionality (which are decently close to one an other) but rather two simple things. My personal experience has shown that Photoshop is a lot more powerful when it comes to the actual processing of the image that's being edited. Also, the integration with Adobe's other products (Illustrator, for example) is another reason why I use Photoshop.

      GIMP's great, but I'm not going to use it for my job until it matches photoshop in the power and integration area, and to be honest, I can see this happening in the near future, as GIMP is a really great example of what GNU can do for powerful applications.

      If anything were to come along and kill PS... It wouldn't be that hunk of crap from Microsoft, it'd be GIMP.

      --
      I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
    16. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by smallguy78 · · Score: 1

      It was funny? I got a chuck norris email and thought the person obviously had never endured a chuck norris film. He's about as ironic as william shatner

      --
      Nothing costs nothing
    17. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1
      No professional photographers I know (and I know a LOT) use GIMP because Linux doesn't have ubiquitous color management. Bzzt!

      Close, but no cigar. GIMP runs on Windows, so the issue isn't Linux itself, although signficant color management support is a Photoshop-over-GIMP issue for me. As I recall the rest of the laundry list of features important to my work that aren't in GIMP, they're things like CYMK support and adjustment layers.

    18. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      The shadow layer thing you described could easily be put into a tiny script. The problem is having it automatically run on changes, but at least the repetitiveness of it could be diminished if you just setup a simple script.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    19. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      It's only 10 minutes googling if you don't already know what the program offers. You can hardly penalise it because you're new to using it. I'm not saying it offers everything that photoshop does, but it offers most of the important features, and it's a good enough replacement for most people.

    20. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by podperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are aware that in Photoshop you can change shadow parameters and have an interactive preview... That a layer style can consist of any number of layered components (shadows, highlights, overlays, etc.) which can be flipped on and off, have their opacity changed, etc. all with live previews. That you can copy the style from one layer to another. That you can encapsulate it in the UI where it will preview itself with an icon.

      Oh, and this is all scriptable in Photshop, both visually (via recording your actions) and programmatically (via JavaScript).

      Yeah, it might be a little less convenient to do this in aptly named GIMP.

      The GIMP is so laughably pathetic compared to Photoshop that only someone who hasn't actually done anything significant with either would compare the two.

    21. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by zlogic · · Score: 1

      I usually Google for something when I can't find it in the menus, toolbars, and help. Many of the features I thought were must-have and obvious didn't exist in Gimp, and Googling simply proved that the stuff I was searching for didn't exist.
      And 10 minutes of Googling for *nearly each* new operation is kind of annoying for a user migrated from Photoshop. One of the other things that drove me mad was when I closed the additional window (the one with layers and other toolbars, not the one with the menu), I couldn't restore it because Gimp thought that I didn't like it and didn't want it! I had to erase my ~/.gimp-2.2 folder to restore that back.

    22. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      As a non-Linux-user (currently), I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the parent and claims made elsewhere in this discussion about lcms (described here as a "commonly-agreed-upon color management subsystem"). Can someone clear this up?

    23. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      layer styles, including shadows
      Because the web needs more shadows, does the GNU Imgage Manipulation Program also lack a "Crystal" filter?
      save for web
      ...because I don't really know what I'm doing, I'm the source of 24 bit PNG with 4 coulors, one day I hope to beat Bittorrent on bandwidth usage!
      photoshop has more filters, and many can be actually useful
      Woohoo, yet more ready made effects! I'm sure no one else will use that filter...
      shadows/highlight (first appeared in Photoshop CS)
      More shadows, more crystal! I make sites just like a pro now! Now where did I save that Dreamweaver crack?
    24. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      It's hardly the programs fault if you expect it to work exactly the same out of the box. It is a technically inferior program in a few ways, but I put most of this lost functionality down you you not knowing what you're supposed to do yet. The GIMP can handle most peoples use of graphics programs, and that probably includes you. Try getting used to doing it a different way.

  3. Gimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Come on You Gimps

    1. Re:Gimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wheelchair-bound you insensitive clod.

      r

    2. Re:Gimps by kadathseeker · · Score: 1

      Gah, GIMP is so lame.

      --
      The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
  4. News? by bk4u · · Score: 5, Funny

    This isn't news, let me know when Google makes one, then I'll be interested

    --
    Remember kids, with great power comes great opportunity to abuse that power
    1. Re:News? by simong · · Score: 2, Funny

      But what would Google do with the knowledge that people photoshopped their girlfriends' head onto Angelina Jolie's body?

    2. Re:News? by mod-e-rate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hopefully it will be called Gooshop. And will definitely be supported by ads. The moment you do anything in "Gooshop", it will display "photosense" ads alongside the image being edited. And your photos and photo editing history will be saved by Google, so that next time you open Gooshop, Google will suggest the list of photos that you are "likely" to edit. And also suggest the editing actions you are likly to use. After using Gooshop for a while, it might just be able to satisfy all your photo-editing needs automatically. Just run Googhsop service and forget about it. Gooshop will edit, scale, mail, publish, print, frame photos for you. All automatically.

      -
      IMHO, sigs are just a wastage of precious bits and bytes.

    3. Re:News? by Brok3n+Halo · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong that despite being completely sarcastic, the last comment totaly sold me on the hypathetical "Gooshop". Think the name would be GPhoto though. That or integerted right into Picassa(SP?).

  5. 42 by webword · · Score: 2, Funny

    The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life... ...also the number of times the Gimp will be mentioned here.

    1. Re:42 by keraneuology · · Score: 1

      Who cares about Gimp? Paint.net is all that most non-professionals or uber-hobby folk would ever need. And it is free (as in non-alcoholic beer).

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    2. Re:42 by teslar · · Score: 1
      also the number of times the Gimp will be mentioned here.

      Oh come on, this is slashdot. Do you really think we'd stop at 42 when we can mention something that puts M$ to shame? Unless of course you are counting in Base 256 or something... ;)
    3. Re:42 by doh123 · · Score: 1

      lets see, paint.net doesnt do as much as GIMP... GIMP runs on more than just Windows... and they BOTH are free downloads...

      hmmm..... let me think...

  6. Expression marketing campaign? by Rahga · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hey guys, lets get a lot of photos of people pretending to paint, then copy and paste and rotate them a lot so it looks like a kaleidoscope!"

    Genius, I tell you. Pure genius.

    I need one of those koosh Microsoft jobs... From where I'm standing, I'm reminded of the Ghostbusters line: "I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."

    1. Re:Expression marketing campaign? by BullfrogJones · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Expression marketing campaign? by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      "Hey guys, lets get a lot of photos of people pretending to paint, then copy and paste and rotate them a lot so it looks like a kaleidoscope!"

      Looks more like they're bending over to me...

      How else do you explain his Expression?

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    3. Re:Expression marketing campaign? by PixelScuba · · Score: 1

      There is no Microsoft, only Zuul.

  7. Beta Version avaliable now by phase_9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    if you haven't tried the beta already, simply press the Windows Key and R, then type 'mspaint.exe' without the quotes.
    classic.

  8. Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by babbling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Microsoft think that the scope of the application is too small to be considered a completely separate package, it's not going to be the "Photoshop Killer" that they want it to be.

    Will they get it right eventually? Probably. Microsoft can afford to throw money at things until they become good, and they have the added advantage of being able to make any product successful just by making it the "default". For this reason, they get a huge headstart over any competitors. Once competitors like Adobe and Google realise this, they might start thinking that switching customers over to Linux is a good idea. On Linux, no company controls the playground, so every application developing company is in there with an equal chance. There's no "default".

    1. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by bensch128 · · Score: 1

      I think they want Expression Interaction Designer to be a Flash+Photoshop+Freehand+Illistrator killer. They're putting in pixel+vector tools and scripting and god knows what else. Personally, I'm putting my money on them losing a lot of money for 2-3 years before they realize the ideal feature set. Then who knows...

      Adobe will be under an immense amount of pressure from this though. MS wants to steal their bread and butter. I expect a lawsuit in 2 years for UI infringment.

      Cheers,
      Ben

      PS. Hopefully some interesting oss ui projects will get started because of this...

    2. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by Rahga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If Microsoft think that the scope of the application is too small to be considered a completely separate package, it's not going to be the "Photoshop Killer" that they want it to be."

      It's not what about what 'can be done', but what would make them the most product. This approach is:

      1) Publish 4 as a bundle, which is just as cheap to mass produce as 1 standalone would be.
      2) Sell the bundle of 4 at the cost of 3.
      4) Profit! The customer thinks they are getting a good deal, though they probably won't regularly use more than 1 of the 4 products.

    3. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft throwing money, crushing competitors, google, switching to linux and a shoutout to linux. Wow, that has covered all the keywords. hmmm... let's see, you sir will be modded +5 informative. Oh, since when did google have a photoshop type app? Have a nice day

    4. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by Aokubidaikon · · Score: 1

      Photoshop-killer? Maybe they should try to make a Gimp-killer first before taking on Adobe ^_^

    5. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      The thing that companies have to realise is that they really need Linux.

      I hope that Google buying Writely and building a Calendar is part of this - disconnecting "office" functions from the OS.

    6. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by babbling · · Score: 1

      Google don't have a "photoshop type app", but Microsoft and Google have plenty of competing products.

      I'm putting my money on Google's office suite being free, and Microsoft having their new search engine as the "start" page in IE7 when Vista launches.

      Have a lovely day yourself, sir. :)

    7. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by Randolpho · · Score: 1

      Adobe will be under an immense amount of pressure from this though. MS wants to steal their bread and butter. I expect a lawsuit in 2 years for UI infringment.

      God, I hoped not. One thing I consistently dislike about Photoshop is the UI. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a pretty good track record for UI. I had high hopes that Expression Graphic Designer would have a better UI than Photoshop, but with all the goodies.

      Alas, I've downloaded the CTP. Less features and a klunky UI. Even GIMP is better. Heck, Paintshop Pro is better.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    8. Re:Then it's not a "Photoshop Killer" by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not thinking of Adobe here? LiveMotion for instance? The only reason I got it was cuz I bought their Web Designer bundle 5 years ago.

  9. Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yawn. Microsoft kills nothing but itself. Wake me up when they fix the internet.

  10. Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by od05 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Creative Suite is cross platform, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to want to take down Adobe. iLife takes customers away from Windows, it makes more sense for them to be making Final Cut and iPhoto killers instead of trying to make another Illustrator & Dreamweaver. Most professional Graphic Designers are still going to use Illustrator instead of Expression anyways...

    1. Re:Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm amazed. Only microsoft could buy a program that I used to run on my 120mhz Powermac in like 1997 that would have performance issues described by "Microsoft has recommended relatively high system specifications for Acrylic, saying consumers should preferably run the software on an Intel Pentium 4 machine, with Windows XP Service Pack 2, 512MB of memory..."

      Expression was neat at the time, but the stylus illustrator plugin improved on it and illustrator 9 or 10 blew it out of the water.

      Also, I really see this "Photoshop Killer" being Paint Shop Pro on steroids. I honestly can't see microsoft competing in the pro market at all. The only competing they do is when we get the do-it-yourselfers sending us M$ Publisher files or Powerpoint files that are to be used for output; which results in us needing to rebuild their files from the elements, if possible. or just do a complete re-create.

      all I can say is 'ugh.'

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    2. Re:Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      Paint Shop Pro on steroids? That is Photoshop. Have you used PSP lately? Paint Shop Pro has many of the capabilties Photoshop is so highly regarded for... Which is why I don't see Microsoft getting very far into this market. Photoshop rules and most people don't know that many, if not all, of the features they love Photoshop for are to be had with alternatives. Certainly, there are still features that only PS has, but those are far fewer than almost anyone out there believes.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    3. Re:Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      PSP is fine for many things. If you're doing web stuff, it suffices, if not shines.

      however, PSP is NOT a production application. it doesn't do CMYK. it doesn't do color separation. beyond that, I'm not even sure if it supports highres files or any color mode other than RGB.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    4. Re:Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by Gumber · · Score: 1

      Also, I really see this "Photoshop Killer" being Paint Shop Pro on steroids. I honestly can't see microsoft competing in the pro market at all. The only competing they do is when we get the do-it-yourselfers sending us M$ Publisher files or Powerpoint files that are to be used for output; which results in us needing to rebuild their files from the elements, if possible. or just do a complete re-create.

      I think you're pretty much right that the market segment for this isn't true professionals. However, that said, it could still be bad for Adobe in the long run.

      First off, I'm sure the Photoshop revenue Adobe gets from non-pros is significant. Second, the value of the Photoshop brand helps adobe sell their own non-pro versions of photoshop, like PS Elements.

      Third, if Microsoft can underut Adobe in non-traditional photoshop markets, they can deprive Adobe of growth and potentially absorb more and more of Adobe's core market in successive versions (disrupt from below). I'd guess that at least part of the reason Microsoft is financing a product like this is the worry that Adobe might do the same thing, and use their content creation tools to start chipping away at the Office System edifice.

    5. Re:Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a world where M$ undercuts Adobe. Adobe fails to grow. The King of the graphics world winds up selling their assets to M$ who continually chewed into their marketshare until their products weren't profitable to warrant supporting them any longer.

      Now you've got M$ Photoshop and M$ Illustrator. Microsoft then Microsoftifies their newly purchased pro apps.

      I don't want to live in such a world. I'd rather die.

    6. Re:Expression vs. Creative Suite or iLife? by kie · · Score: 1

      I think that this is very unlikely to happen,
      but anyway you do have an alternative choice - run linux.

      If you tried it you might even find you like it.
      www.ubuntu.com is a decent starting point.

      --
      living the dream
  11. The next logical headline is by paiute · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how MS does not want there to be some great new application that slays their precious Windows/Office cash cow, the instant it - whatever it is - is announced, we will read

    Microsoft Betas Killer App Killer

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  12. Microsoft Expression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What are people going to say when a photograph looks fake? It must have been expressed? Doesn't sound right.

    1. Re:Microsoft Expression? by y00tz · · Score: 0

      Expression contests just don't seem as appealing...

  13. I tried it.. by bigman2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, I'll admit that I am somewhat of a Microsoft fan. (see my history...) Yeah, you might think I'm sick. But I do think they put out a lot of good software.

    I was excited about this when it was announced. I've downloaded the betas...umm...it just isn't quite good.

    Yes, I understand it is a beta.

    But this thing is ugly, it's SLOW and it doesn't seem to be anywhere NEAR Photoshop.

    I've downloaded tons on Microsoft betas (working on IE 7 now) and this had to have been the worst that I ever used. I just don't know where this one is heading. People up above suggested that this will be an integral part of the OS and bundled in...

    I don't see how it has a chance otherwise...

    Not to mention the fact that the world isn't even ASKING for a Photoshop replacement.

    --
    No reason to lie.
    1. Re:I tried it.. by daigu · · Score: 1

      By the time Microsoft comes out with a Photoshop killer, InDesign will have already buried it.

    2. Re:I tried it.. by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Ummm, yeah. Cos InDesign has such high-end raster manipulation functions...Do you even have the slightest clue of what you speak?

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:I tried it.. by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not to mention the fact that the world isn't even ASKING for a Photoshop replacement

      Indeed. In fact, if they bundled Paint.NET in with Windows, then this would be perfectly adequate for the vast majority of people. It is that good.

      I'm not sure how well Paint.NET stacks up in terms of features against the GIMP. My own personal experience was that it was easier to use, the UI was logical and I was productive with it in a matter of minutes - whereas GIMP just had me getting frustrated and going nowhere quickly.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    4. Re:I tried it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nor is it intended to be a PhotoShop killer. It has a completely different purpose in life; to produce graphics to work well with the Avalon graphics system. It's core is vector graphics, not bitmap graphics, which immediately means that it's competing more with the likes of Illustrator and not PhotoShop. But even then it's not meant to really be a general purpose tool, it's much more closely related to software development. The two other products in the Expression line are a webpage designer (Quartz) and an application UI designer (Sparkle). This product tied in with those two.

      Personally I think Microsoft would be right by not releasing Acrylic as it's own stand alone product. They should release it with Sparkle and Quartz as a graphics editor. Users will still have their choice as even now there are plugins for Illustrator to product files which can be imported and used by Sparkle.

      This whole "Photoshop-killer" thing was invented by ZDNet and perpetuated by Slashdot. Microsoft never claimed it.

    5. Re:I tried it.. by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      But this thing is ugly, it's SLOW and it doesn't seem to be anywhere NEAR Photoshop.


      Maybe the point is to have an integrated package that will make ready to use UI elements for Vista applications? Part of that was developing some image editing functionality.

      I'm not going to stand behind that, just to kick an idea out there. With the complexity of the new UI it seems reasonable to me that MS would want to put an integrated solution out there.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    6. Re:I tried it.. by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that the world isn't even ASKING for a Photoshop replacement.

      They weren't asking for a PageMaker replacement, either. Now PageMaker is a footnote in the history of graphic designers and layout editors.

      The sick, evil beauty of the MS Publisher coup is that people who didn't even know they wanted or needed PageMaker started using Publisher, because it came from a larger marketing vector and sometimes even simply came with their computers or office suites. (Sound familiar?)

      That's how MS wins. Quality be damned. Marketing is everything. Most people are dumbasses.

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
    7. Re:I tried it.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it has a chance otherwise...

      Not to mention the fact that the world isn't even ASKING for a Photoshop replacement.


      It would be amazing if MS could seriously hurt Photoshop with the simple 20%/80% rule and not to sell this separetly, but just an update on mspaint. One of the "little" features that made me like WinXP was the Picture and Fax viewer and viewing folders as thumbnaiils. Oh programs to do the same things have been around, but they'd be something that I'd have to hunt and buy a licensed copy for each machine. It's much nicer having little OS apps intergrated right in that do those things. They wouldn't even need to copy GIMP or PhotoShop. I'm thinking of MS more likely copying Paint Shop Pro and including that in Vista. Photoshop is for professionals. Paint Shop Pro is aimmed at everyone. I've not really used the MS Office Picture Manager, but they may be aiming at blending that and a PSP clone. It would be "good enough" for those that can't afford $X00 on Photoshop or the $X0 on PSP, but still need a graphics app. I'd expect professonals to still use photoshop and most power users to use PSP, but if mom buys a new low end Vista computer, she'd use this builtin MS tool that works well enough. (I'd hope.)

    8. Re:I tried it.. by Shadarr · · Score: 1

      Price is another big one. Adobe products cost enough that unless you're using them professionally (ie making a fair amount of money using them) it's not really a justifiable expense. I know a number of people who would gladly use InDesign, but since they're just doing stuff for free or the occasional paying gig in their spare time they bought Publisher instead, even though it sucks and they know it sucks. Those same people, though they talk about "photoshopping" an image, are really using Gimp or a free copy of Corel Photopaint that came with their scanner. There's definitely room in the market for something that does a lot of what Photoshop does, but is priced for the casual consumer.

    9. Re:I tried it.. by daigu · · Score: 1

      The comment should be read within the context of the post on Vista, Expression, etc. There is a move in the graphics industry to greater integration between graphics and page layout. I'm guessing that it will eventually all be one product - and in Adobe's case that will likely be InDesign. Also, its not about right now - its about when Microsoft has a competing product. By that time, InDesign may very well have high-end raster manipulation features built-in. I wasn't in any way saying it was a replacement now.

      I'm not an expert on graphics or the industry. Care to tell me why you think I'm wrong?

  14. Rudderless Ship? by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like the Good Ship Redmond is adrift. They are preoccupied by too many projects going on, such as putting the wraps on Vista and Longhorn Server, "Orcas" (successor to Visual Studio 2005, aka "Whidbey"), Office 12... then they still have to deal with antitrust fights all around the world.

    I notice too, that they haven't bought anyone out recently. They probably should, because they certainly haven't had much luck with any new product development. UMPC (or, "Newton XP") is going to be DOA.

    Instead of "Developers! Developers! Developers!", Balmer needs to be jumping around screaming "Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas!"

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Rudderless Ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I notice too, that they haven't bought anyone out recently.

      They bought Onfolio five days ago.

    2. Re:Rudderless Ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of "Developers! Developers! Developers!", Balmer needs to be jumping around screaming "Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas!"

      Oh, I don't know. As long as he's jumping around screaming anything, I'll be entertained. Chair-throwing is a plus.
    3. Re:Rudderless Ship? by demongp · · Score: 2, Informative
      I notice too, that they haven't bought anyone out recently.

      Actually, they are still pretty active on the buyout scene - one particular one that i am thinking about right now is the recent buyout of UMT Portfolio Management software see http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5998084.html for more details.

      You probably won't be very interested in this, but it is quite big actually (if only in my field) and is sure to give MS quite a boost in the Project and Portfolio Management software arenas

  15. the Photoshop-killer-killer by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Vista needs to be released first

    Looks like Vista is the Photoshop-killer-killer

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  16. Editorial slant by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did Microsoft ever say this was going to be a "Photoshop killer" or is that just editorial? This kind of editorial doesn't help at all, in fact it muddies the waters if it is not meant to be a product that competes with Photoshop. Editors are supposed to clarify things.

    1. Re:Editorial slant by gutnor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems the product do not even aim at being a photoshop-like application. Maybe this has changed since the beta, but the main purpose was vectorial graphism.

      Microsoft is not even talking on its website about anything that could position it against Photoshop.
      Just see by yourself

      http://www.microsoft.com/products/expression/en/gr aphic_designer/gd_features.aspx
      http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/overview.h tml

      When you tried to 'kill' another product, you generally start to match its features, in this case, both feature list have almost nothing in common.

      For me that doesn't make more sense that saying Adobe Illustrator is a Photoshop killer.

      BTW, this has already been discussed:

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/11/185123 1

  17. competition with adobe? by brennz · · Score: 1

    I wonder how Microsoft will fare competing with Adobe and if any artistic/talented types have some input on it.

    It appears another potential market for MS growth (virtualization) is being headed off by the release of free tools for the user, and possible open sourcing (talking about EMC/VMware).

    Could Adobe be up to the same, going OSS with file formats to prevent MS from making inroads?

    1. Re:competition with adobe? by Masq666 · · Score: 1

      I realy don't think Microsoft will be capable of taking market share from Adobe, microsoft may have the resources to make a good competitor to Photoshop, but i realy don't think they'll be able to make something better.

      --
      Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
    2. Re:competition with adobe? by brennz · · Score: 1

      I think MS would have a rougher time invading the graphics space, than would say, Google. After using Picasa, there is no doubt in my mind Google understands UI.

      http://picasa.google.com/

      Picasa really does make navigating large amounts of photos a breeze. Free too, which is always a plus, and the integration with gmail is growing also.

  18. They did what? by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They...stopped working on it?

    What happened? Did they run out of programmers?

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    1. Re:They did what? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nyet! Programmers ran out on them!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:They did what? by jkmiecik · · Score: 1

      Or the programmers were assigned elsewhere.

      Crap, forgot this is /. and anything to make M$ (can't forget the $) look bad will get modded up.

    3. Re:They did what? by cerberusss · · Score: 1
      What happened? Did they run out of programmers?

      Yes, indeed, they ran out of them. The software development method at Microsoft involves a giant, living, evil machine which has some sort of mouth on one end. This is where programmers are fed into. It then outputs shrinkwrapped boxes on the other end.

      I heard it works quite well.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  19. It will never work. by Xerp · · Score: 1

    ... unless they actually call it "Photoshop", and it it exactly the same as Photoshop in every way. People will still want Photoshop installed, regardless of the alternatives.

    Heres a thought though; why don't Microsoft stop trying to "kill" everything and work on making their operating systems more secure and robust?

    1. Re:It will never work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS wasn't trying to kill anything here, they're not even positioning themselves that way. Only thing that's being killed is my respect for Slashdot readers who just suck down the article summary like yourself.

    2. Re:It will never work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another thought for you... why don't you actually read the article and Microsoft advertising before you open your crapper. Microsoft has never once even hinted at any type of comparison to Adobe Photoshop, on any level.

    3. Re:It will never work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above AC is correct - its meant to be a competitor to MS Paint.

    4. Re:It will never work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, well structured criticism there. We can see why you posted as an anonymous COWARD. If you'd actually bothered to READ THE FRIENDLY ARTICLE you'd see that Microsoft are trying to position the software in part of a STUDIO package. Much like... oh wait... Adobe. (Of course, unlike Adobe, there will be no support for other operating systems). And... oh look a "PDF Killer"... much like the document format by ... mm.... Adobe! Its Microsoft being Microsoft -again-. Jeez. You Microsoft fanbois really need to grow up and stop being so naive. Don't fall into the mouth of the Microsoft marketing machine and actually believe all the crap they chuck out.

  20. The Perfect Photoshop Killer... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they want to dominate the market, the product pricing has to be between what you would pay for Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop. Plus they have to offer a Mac version and a free Wacom tablet.

    Nah... that will never happen.

  21. To add to the guessworking by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My guess in the whole deal is that they've been working on it, saw that it can't hold a candle to Photoshop and to the fact that Adobe pretty much sets the standard for DTP in Windows, so the whole deal will be revamped as an additional goodie in the Office suite.

    That way, some kinda graphics program is already on your machine when you have Office (and what office doesn't?), it's another thing that you can hand to marketing in an attempt to make OpenOffice look worse, and in a generation or two, they might start to create some "professional" or "enterprize" standalone version when they hit Adobe's market hard enough, when people got used to their "standard".

    MS isn't in a hurry. Taking over a market someone else claimed takes time, and time is what they have plenty of.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:To add to the guessworking by ingwa · · Score: 1
      A good thing, then, that KOffice is there to take up the slack, eh? It contains both a pixel graphics editor / paint program (Krita) and a vector graphics editor (Karbon).

      And if the lack of a mail program is a real problem, then just package it with Kontact and you have almost an equivalent of outlook too.

  22. It'll run faster than photoshop by MECC · · Score: 1


    Mysteriously, it'll run much faster than photoshop....

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  23. I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Not to mention the fact that the world isn't even ASKING for a Photoshop replacement."

    The world might not be, but I am. Photoshop, for all its snazzy tools, is in need of a refresh, one it's not going to get from Adobe. Many bugs have persisted in every version I've used, from 4 to 8 (CS), and the basic interface has never changed. There are lot of usability improvements that could be made.*

    I'd personally like Apple or a Mac software outfit like Panic to create a Photoshop competitor. With APIs like Core Image and Core Data available now, much of the groundwork is already laid for a great OS X application. And if I were running Adobe, I'd get a small team of engineers like the ones responsible for Lightbox to start building a Photoshop replacement from the ground up.

    * Here's an example of what I mean. To save a .png file after editing it, I should just be able to hit "save". Instead, it takes no fewer than 6 clicks to get the darn file saved. Adobe does little or no usability testing, I'm convinced.

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    1. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you really think that Microsoft is going to be the one to bring UI improvments to Photoshop? It's not exactly their strong suit.

    2. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an example of what I mean. To save a .png file after editing it, I should just be able to hit "save". Instead, it takes no fewer than 6 clicks to get the darn file saved. Adobe does little or no usability testing, I'm convinced.

      What the hell are you talking about. In photoshop 7, I take a new image, do some drawing, and go to save it as a png
      1) Choose File|Save
      2) Provide the file name and choose PNG as my file type and click OK
      3) Choose whether I want the file interlaced or not
      Done.

      After editing an existing PNG file
      1) Choose File|Save
      Done.

      Not sure how you expect Adobe to shorten either of those processes unless you want psychic saving and psychic filename generation/file format selection.

    3. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      "And you really think that Microsoft is going to be the one to bring UI improvments to Photoshop? It's not exactly their strong suit."

      Sorry, I should have been more specific that I neither expect nor want a Photoshop competitor from Microsoft on my platform (OS X). However, I do want someone to make a better graphic design application, and I suspect many designers on the Windows side of things would agree.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    4. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      "After editing an existing PNG file
      1) Choose File|Save
      Done."

      Actually, if you're editing and re-saving a PNG while keeping the layers un-flattened, the process is:

      1) Click save in the menu.
      2) Re-select the PNG format option, which Photoshop forgets.
      3) Re-type or re-select the correct file name.
      4) Click the save button again, this time in the file dialog.
      5) Click "yes" to confirm that I do really want to save it.
      6) Tell it once again that I want it non-interlaced instead of interlaced.

      6 clicks to save a bloody PNG I already had open. It's a small thing, but Photoshop has dozens of rough edges like this that make everything a little too frustrating, and Adobe has no intention of fixing it as far as I can tell.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    5. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by pilkul · · Score: 2, Informative
      if you're editing and re-saving a PNG while keeping the layers un-flattened

      It forces you to jump through these hoops because this is a dangerous operation: you're actually throwing away data by doing this. I'd rather go through this dialog a hundred times than to once lose my layered copy of an image I've been working on for hours because some UI designer thought it would be "friendly" to have it rapidly save in an unlayered file format without warnings.

    6. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried flattening the image, then hitting CTRL-S?

    7. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by rizawbone · · Score: 1
      And you really think that Microsoft is going to be the one to bring UI improvments to Photoshop? It's not exactly their strong suit.

      Some people thing is is, have you taken a look at OpenOffice recently?

    8. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If you open it unlayered and add no layers, it should quietly save it unlayered. As the granparent said, there are rough edges that are frustratingly obvious. It's like there is a firewall between usability testers and the UI designers.

      Probably, there is a very arrogant and entrenched bureaucracy. Most 'mature' companies develop such a thing.

    9. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by BrynM · · Score: 4, Informative
      * Here's an example of what I mean. To save a .png file after editing it, I should just be able to hit "save". Instead, it takes no fewer than 6 clicks to get the darn file saved. Adobe does little or no usability testing, I'm convinced.
      This may sound like a cliche, but that's a feature! It's not letting you save instantly because you've created layers and PNG doesn't support layers. I do things to single layer PNGs all of the time. All it takes is a simple ctrl-s to save. If you've got layers, hit ctr-shift-e before ctrl-s to merge all of the visible layers and flatten the image. You can even undo (ctrl-z) the flattening after your save if you want to continue editing with layers as long as Photoshop is still open. If using three key combinations is too much, you can use save for web (alt-shift-ctrl-s) and save your layered original as a PSD (complete with your save for web settings from the operation) seperately.

      CS is all about workflow andnon-destructive editing. That's why production shops (and I) like it. Even if you did have something that took "6 clicks" to do, you could record it as an action, highlight at which points it should ask you questions if at all and assign it to a key such as F5. Sorry, but your usability problem lies with the user on this one.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    10. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      If you open it unlayered and add no layers, it should quietly save it unlayered.

      If you open it unlayered and add no layers, it does quietly save it unlayered. As the grandparent said, it's a good thing that it doesn't just auto-flatten a layered image for you, especially when the format supports both layered and flattened images.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    11. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may sound like a cliche, but that's a feature! It's not letting you save instantly because you've created layers and PNG doesn't support layers.

      Not sure if you've ever used Macromedia Fireworks, but not only does it save layered PNGs, that's its native file format.

    12. Re:I'd like a Photoshop replacement by BrynM · · Score: 1
      Not sure if you've ever used Macromedia Fireworks, but not only does it save layered PNGs, that's its native file format.
      The Macromedia method of layering (stacked metadata) is out of spec and should not be used to distribute PNG files. When Adobe merged with Macromedia I actually wondered if Adobe would create a new format or rename the PNG modification for Fireworks because of their normal adherance to standards. I figured it was too esoteric a thought back then...
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  24. Free alternative to Photoshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimp 2.2 (the free alternative)

    1. Re:Free alternative to Photoshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would someone be so kind as to tell those Gimpy wierdos that its hard enough learning photoshop, so seperating that difficulty into 3 different windows that you have to tab back and forth from is really aggrivating? //PS, if there's a solution I don't know about, I'd be more than happy to hear about it. ///PPS: Can we please add the Graphic-Text support like in photoshop?

    2. Re:Free alternative to Photoshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try gimp on Linux with sloppy focus + auto-raise, it's a completely different experience than on windows. But it doesn't really matter, because the gtk2 bullshit has pretty much destroyed any chance of gimp actually being taken seriously. I finally had to reinstall windows because gimp just can't get the job done. Which isn't even a tools issue (though Photoshop definitely has some stuff that kicks gimp's ass) but a UI one.

      What I mean to say is fuck gimp/gnome/gtk. Those idiots are destroying both firefox and gimp, two OSS applications that are widely used on Linux and for which there are no viable alternatives.

  25. Cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe they should spend less time worrying about Expressions and more time finishing Vista. I'm sure the new OS will have a better imaging program than Photoshop, a better search program than Spotlight, a better music manager than iTunes, and a better widget program than Konfabulator. They are overlooking one minor detail...most people prefer products that exist over those that don't.

  26. Clippy Returns! by zaguar · · Score: 2, Funny
    Repost from the other thread, but it's still valid

    / \
    O O
    |||/
    |\/|
    \__/
    Hey there, partner! It looks like you're trying to change your color balance!

    Would you like me to:
    1. Overwrite all pixels with #000000
    2. Overwrite all pixels with #FFFFFF
    3. Corrupt your image
    4. Save your image in our proprietary format that even we can't read
    5. Take you to the Gimp homepage
    --
    "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
    1. Re:Clippy Returns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that rendering of clippy - the "nose" has that special feeling in it. Eyes could be placed a little better though.

  27. MS not synonymous with creativity by nysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I think MicroSoft, I don't think creativity. It seems MS fails to understand the concept of branding. You can't have two different personality traits, one creative and hip, the other nerdy and utilitarian, and sell products under the same banner. It's just doesn't work in the mind of consumers.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      Obviously, I mean, look at Microsoft's low market value! They know nothing about putting their products to market and selling the hell out of them.

      Warning: High levels of sarcasm detected.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    2. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by nysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MS's fortunes were built on two products, Office and Windows. That doesn't translate to success with other software.

      You can't make Oldsmobiles and then expect to put out the #1 selling sports car in the field as well. GM is just not identified with slick sports cars. Yeah, they have one (the Pontiac Grand Prix), but it's certainly not a top seller.

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    3. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      using your analogy, if microsoft made Oldsmobiles, and then decided to start also making decent car stereos, you can bet each Oldsmobile would have a Microsoft car stereo.

      It doesn't matter if it's good or not, if they replace MSPaint with Paint.net, all the better. Will it kill photoshop? Nope, but I bet quite a few amateur graphics people would purchase Paint.net if it wasn't $1000.

      Oh, and people used your same argument when Microsoft made the XBox and look where it's at now.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    4. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by Watcher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GM is just not identified with slick sports cars. Yeah, they have one (the Pontiac Grand Prix), but it's certainly not a top seller.


      Yeah, that Japanese made Corvette sure is putting GM to shame! Um...wait a minute...

    5. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, I mean, look at Microsoft's low market value! They know nothing about putting their products to market and selling the hell out of them.

      Warning: High levels of sarcasm detected.

      I'm looking at Microsoft's low market value. Currently NASDAQ prices are at 26.98. Now I'm looking at Apple's higher market value. It's at 65.56. Hmm, what's this, Google's in the 300s.
    6. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      It seems MS fails to understand the concept of branding.

      PROOF!

    7. Re:MS not synonymous with creativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the Grand Prix was a sports car? Huh, news to me.

      If a family sedan/oversize coupe is the definition of a sports car, then, yeah, GM doesn't make sports cars.

      Of course, if you define sports cars in the way, well, everybody else does, GM does make the Corvette, the Pontiac Solstice, the Pontiac GTO, the Cadillac XLR, probably a new Camaro...

  28. Masochism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Now I know a ton of graphic designers who use Windows machines. That was unheard of when I was younger."

    What do they do? Surely not prepress. You can get Photoshop for the PC, but trying to ensure colour accuracy on a PC is a nasty, nasty process. It costs far more in time than you save on hardware, and even with the best solutions available you won't have consistent colour across all apps.

    Sounds like you know a lot of _web_ designers.

    1. Re:Masochism by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Informative

      No kidding. I work at a FedExKinko's, and we flat out tell customers that we can't color match, because what you see on the screen is not always going to look the same on the prints. Especially in the case of our oversize color printer, where MS's default blue (on the screen) comes out as purple on the paper. Fortunately, it's only on the color oversize printer, which is made by HP, which does this. The XEROX based color copiers we have print it as blue. Not the exact same shade of blue, of course, but it's not purple.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Masochism by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct. The Windows users are mostly web designers.
      I have heard horror stories from print shops who get word docs that people want on the 4 color press....

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    3. Re:Masochism by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      The only print shops I know only use windows when customers give them a Publisher file to print.
      Those customers don't understand what colormatching is yet complain when it is off in the slightest bit.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    4. Re:Masochism by hullabalucination · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Same here. And I'm a guy who bucked the trend and did high-end CMYK color on Windows for 7 years before largely giving up on it (partner still uses Win2K, although she dual-boots Linux and is learning it now).

      One of the big problems under Windows is the lack of a commonly-agreed-upon color management subsystem that all vendors utilize, like Apple has in Kodak's ColorSync (and Linux has in lcms). On Windows, you've got Microsoft's color system, which everybody happily ignores, then Adobe's system, along with others. One of my favorite Stupid Windows Tricks (under Win2K): Open a Corel product (CorelDraw, say) and an Adobe product (Photoshop), go to adjust the color settings in CorelDraw and get a sharing violation. Um, guys...ICC profiles are supposed to be shared system resources.

      Another big problem: Microsoft just doesn't "get" Postscript. Microsoft's Windows XP Postscript drivers are so lousy that some consultants are advising clients to stick with, or downgrade to, Win2K. Symptom: I've got a client who has five software patents from a long programming career with Tandy, Gateway and others. This guy's no Luser. Yet, he absolutely cannot get an EPS out of Microsoft Publisher with the image oriented correctly to his page setup. Obviously, a lot of this is Publisher's fault, but you get all sorts of nonsense out of Windows using Microsoft's Postscript printer drivers and graphics software that the folks on a Mac or Linux never have to put up with.

      I'm doing most all my stuff on Linux now. It ain't perfect, but all the major graphic apps I like for prepress have settled on lcms for color management, plus Scribus has PDF-X/3 output that's so good it's said to better Adobe's own products. Interesting factoid: Ghostscript (the default Postscript interpreter for Linux) follows Adobe's Red Book so closely that it bitches about Illustrator EPS files that don't conform: "Floating point bounding boxes are not allowed in Level 1 Postscript."

    5. Re:Masochism by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      No offense, but if you're relying on the monitor to tell you anything, you're not very good at prepress. Years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we actally looked at CMYK values to do prepress work. You can even do prepress on a black and white monitor (and possibly get better results since you won't be swayed by bright pretty onscreen colors).

      Yes, Windows sucks for color management, and I use a Mac for my imaging work partly for that reason, but I spent years and years doing corporate work in Windows and never had trouble except from silly print shop monkeys who found it hard to believe you could create files on a Windows system.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    6. Re:Masochism by Wizardry+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Ahahaha ... expecting Microsoft to follow the postscript standards ... good one. Truth is, Microsoft can't even manage to follow its OWN standards sometimes; let alone others'. (Adobe has problems with this too, as the parent post points out rather humourously)

      ~ Wizardry Dragon

    7. Re:Masochism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No offense, but if you're relying on the monitor to tell you anything, you're not very good at prepress. Years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we actally looked at CMYK values to do prepress work. You can even do prepress on a black and white monitor (and possibly get better results since you won't be swayed by bright pretty onscreen colors)."

      You're dead right that you have to look at the values to actually get it to the press. That's prepress work.

      Graphic design intended for prepress is a different thing. The original poster said he knew many Graphic Designers who use Windows because Photoshop is feature matched. I said that he must be talking about Web Designers, because Designers who are going to send their work off to press need colour matching.

      This is true. Even though the prepress technicians can do their work in black and white, the composition and design has to be done in true colour. Nobody can look at the colour separations and evaluate the emotional tone of the piece or where the eye will travel.

      Once the design work is done, a guy like you will look at the numbers and make sure they match, and that can be done in all sorts of environments. It's purely mathematical.

      The other factor Web Designers don't have to deal as much as general Graphic Designers do is posterization. It takes a lot of posterization to screw up a web graphic, but it only takes a few level adjustments to get enough going to ruin a print piece. Better colour matching on monitor tends to hold down the number of adjustments you do, and thus smooths out the results.

  29. expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Expression, formerly of creature house, was bought by microsoft a few years ago, company included. It is one of the most innovative packages around. I tracked the tragectory of this technology ever since its first debut at siggraph. Combining deep math and artist sensibility it married vector and bitmaped graphics in truly amazing ways. The key metaphor is that of a brush. Any image can become a brush-stroke, which can make new images which can become further brush strokes. It is extremely intuitive, especially to artists.

    My biggest worry is that microsoft might suck the soul out of this truly innovative product. It is light-years ahead of any painting program (Which is why MS had to buy it, because to allow it to be independent might mean that its own paint programs might have been out compete, however unlikely, snce it did not have a major distributer around the time it was bought out by MS.) especially if it is used in the right context.

    calling it photoshop-killer or positioning it against photoshop is not really the right strategy. Photoshop's core metaphor is that of a photo, so photoshop is especially deft at after effects applied to a photo or the compositing of existing photos. (I'm sure there are people who break the metaphor and create masterpiece digital paintings from photoshop, but nonetheless, original graphics is not photoshop's main domain.) Expression gives you canvas, paint, and a magical brush.

    Time will tell what will happen to this product, here's hoping that it doesn't die at microsoft's hands.

  30. This is why Adobe needs Linux. by babbling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft can't make their applications the "default" on alternative operating systems. With Microsoft starting to expand their reach, companies like Adobe need to start thinking about what they're going to do when Microsoft has a "default" built-into-Windows program that does the same things that Adobe's programs do.

    This concerns all companies that are competing with Microsoft now, or will be in the future. They need to prevent Microsoft from making clones of their programs that will be the Windows "defaults".

    I bet IE7 doesn't have Google search as the start page. Can you guess which page might be the default?

    1. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      Photoshop is far to entrenched in the creative community and they have such an intense hivemind dislike of Microsoft products, that Adobe really doesn't have all that much to be overly concerned about.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    2. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      IE7's start page, as has been for ages, is msn.com. There is a search bar ala Opera and Firefox on the top right which defaults to MSN search, but guess what? You can change it to Google (the option is builtin).

    3. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by bogie · · Score: 1

      "Adobe need to start thinking about what they're going to do when Microsoft has a "default" built-into-Windows program"

      This won't be a built-in to Windows app though. Personally I don't think that Adobe has much to worry about. Think app doesn't even run on Macs.

      And as much as it would be nice to see, I don't see how selling Photoshop for Linux would help Adobe at all. Lets say that 5% of Windows users use Photoshop on a regular basis. Linux makes up like 2% of the desktop market. How much of a market does that leave? Don't forget that even though Macs may only be up to 5% of the market a large pecentage of Mac users are artists. Compare this to the Linux desktop market which is mostly made of techies and hobbyists and extremely few graphic artists. Linux needs Adobee way more than Adobe needs Linux. Like I said it would be nice to have, but it just isn't gonna happen.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    4. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by babbling · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about Adobe just supporting Linux by porting Photoshop to it. I'm talking about them actively pushing Linux onto the desktop. Doing so can only benefit any company that competes with Microsoft products.

    5. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Serious users will still use professional products.
      Look at te current crop of prosumer digital cameras, they have Adobe sRGB color profiles. It'll be a while if at all before MS comes out with anything considered professional.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    6. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet the question in Adobe's mind is whether those free-software open-source Linux types, you know, do those people ever buy software. 'Cause if they don't, there's hardly any point in a commercial company getting involved. Mac users, on the other hand, are obviously willing to pay a premium for a product, because by definition you have to be that way if you buy a Mac.

      (Yes, I am a Mac user.)

    7. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Professional is not a matter of opinion, that's why the GNU Imgage Manipulation Program is a professional tool (Jimmac and many others use it to make a living) no matter what Adobe PhotoShop users think of it.

    8. Re:This is why Adobe needs Linux. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Macromedia was working on a Linux flavour of their creative suite -> DW, FW, Flash, et all...

      Not certain where it stands now since the adobe merger...

      I know Fireworks != Photoshop, but it's pretty decent and is a good start. If sales are good, it'll probably demonstrated to Adobe whether they should port for linux or not...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  31. The Battle for 2nd Place by FearTheFrail · · Score: 1

    Given how strongly the slashdot commenting body seems to be railing against it right now, would that indicate that all it was heading towards was a head-on battle with Corel's (once Jasc's) knock-off, Paint Shop Pro?

    --
    ___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
  32. Simply Amazing. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    You speak of your own intelligence being insulted and then you call others "ignorant" just because they don't want to use GIMP, which has a pretty horrible UI compared to Photoshop.

    Amazing.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Simply Amazing. by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Why the hatred towards the Gimp UI?
      Has anyone actually used it or do you just jump on the "Im a photoshop user and Gimp sucks"?

      I use Photoshop on my Mac and I use Gimp with Linux on a daily basis. Gimp's UI is no more retarded than Photoshops. Your opinions are evidence that you don't use it.

      Their current UI is much better than Gimp 1.0 but it's not horrible. I can fly through with just as much ease as Photoshop.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    2. Re:Simply Amazing. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I have used the GIMP so I know firsthand the UI sucks. So no, my opinions are NOT evidence that I don't use it.

      Your opinions on the other hand are evident that fans of open source products have a higher tolerance for crappy interfaces just as long as the software remains "free".

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Simply Amazing. by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Misrosoft Office has a horrible UI.

      True that most OSS apps have an unpolished UI but workflow should also factor in the UI detail.

      I can fly around Photoshop just as fast as GIMP.
      What is so horrible about GIMP that you are unable to use it?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    4. Re:Simply Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Why the hatred towards the Gimp UI?"

      Beats me. I guess it's because they are still stuck on a 4:3 monitor and need the one window. It's all relative. And for me, I'm still sticking with Autodesk Maya Unlimited on a large 16:9 monitor.

    5. Re:Simply Amazing. by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Some idiots do hate it just because it isn't full of eye candy. But I think there is a genuinely compelling reason behind some of the complaints: things along the lines of taking a dozen or more clicks/menus/option boxes to do very common tasks. It isn't often that people come out with intelligent complaints about this kind of problem, or pointing to specific issues, and I'm not an expert myself; but I think there's something there. This post, in this discussion, touches on a few.

    6. Re:Simply Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No MDI. Makes it really annoying to work with.

    7. Re:Simply Amazing. by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      \afterthought ... but come to think of it I think the lack of CMYK is the most immediate problem.

  33. Does anybody else think... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Does anyone else think that Microsoft's obsession with integrating every damn piece of software that they release is actually hurting their software rather than making it easier to use?

    I worked in Visual Studio 2003 for 2 years and waited with baited breath for 2005 (and all the bugs and new features it was promised to bring), it slipped back more than a year because SQLServer 2005 wasn't ready, then Team System wasn't ready... Now it's finally released and it isn't the fantastic piece of software we thought it would be, partly I recon because the focus wasn't on the IDE, it was on making it and a ridiculous amount of satellite software all work together and integrate seemlessly. Can't help thinking Microsoft would be better off if they *weren't* able to work so closely together!

    1. Re:Does anybody else think... by soulhuntre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Now it's finally released and it isn't the fantastic piece of software we thought it would be, partly I recon because the focus wasn't on the IDE, it was on making it and a ridiculous amount of satellite software all work together and integrate seemlessly"

      Yeah, because the last thing you want in your IDE is an easy and simple way to build, manipulate and deploy your databases. Thats really a silly idea all right. Down with integration!

      Or that incredibly slick Office SDK that makes it a absolute snap to build add ons for Office products that is light years ahead of what was there before. bad, bad idea.

      Oh, and allt hat cool new stuff with tighter integration into the development locally hosted web server for better debugging and easier development of web services. Yeah, that was a dumb idea.

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    2. Re:Does anybody else think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I worked in Visual Studio 2003 for 2 years and waited with baited breath for 2005

      bated

      a ridiculous amount of satellite software all work together and integrate seemlessly.

      seamless

      C'mon dude. It's not that hard.

    3. Re:Does anybody else think... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Fine & great... if it all worked. Visual Studio is still horrendously buggy, the more integration and features they put in the less time seems to be spend making the damn thing work. I'm all for stuff being added that's useful, but considering the constant inconvenience of having to restart because it's decided to randomly lock previously compiled dlls, or that you lose GUI work because the form designer has got confused and deleted controls, the frustration and time wasted far outweighs the minor benefits.

      I just want the thing to work!

    4. Re:Does anybody else think... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      C'mon dude, what does it matter? You understood my meaning perfectly.

      Anyway, 'bated' isn't ever used outside that phrase, and 'baited' is pretty much acceptable by force of common usage.

      Language doesn't stand still, it adapts with common (mis-)usage. Roll with it.

    5. Re:Does anybody else think... by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Point of information: SQLServer slipped because VS slipped, not the other way around. SQLServer also slipped for other reasons, but if you'd see any of the early beta's of the latest VS you'd understand that it definately wasn't just sitting around waiting on SQLServer.

      They focused on making the runtime solid (succeeding for the most part, given the amount of bugs present in the Betas not present in the shipping version), but I guess they put their B-team on the IDE ... the IDE isn't horrible, but it is certainly worse than 2k3; heaven help you if you install it on a non-clean machine.

  34. How many Micro$oft employees does it take by rssrss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    To change a light bulb.

    They have how many tens of thousands of programmers, computer scientists, managers, testers and so forth. They ought to be able to ship software.

    Unless, of course, the whole company has devolved into a bureaucratic clusterf#$%.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  35. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now thats chutzpah! Shamelessly stealing material from other posts and telling everyone you what you did like you are proud of doing it. I believe this will work for fooling those clever mods into giving you points.

  36. The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    To get further in the code, they need to wait for the next version of the GIMP software to be released.

  37. Adobe's Price by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Perhaps this was the price for Adobe not developing a Linux version of Photoshop.

    You stop slicing my back, I'll scratch yours.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  38. You have the right to remain boring... by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

    That hipster dude on MS's "Expression" page looks like he's being arrested and preparing to be handcuffed. Fitting, I guess- "Shackle your creative possibilities!" What would you expect from a company who gives their products such creative names as "Graphic Designer", "Interactive Designer", and "Web Designer"...

  39. Why Why Why Why? by jacks+smirking+reven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I myself am usually a pretty good defender of Microsoft as i find Windows to do everything i need with a bit of tweaking, but this is what bothers me most about them..... They seem to be trying to be all things to all people and losing focus on their prime objectives. As we hear about Microsofts AV software, Graphics software, Google threats, etc etc we hear about features that keep getting sliced out of Vista to the point that its beginning to sound like XP SP3. IMHO they need to focus on a solid, secure OS core that will run this type of software in a stable, usable environment and let companies like Adobe and Macromedia (oops, one in the same now!) worry about specialized programs like this.

    1. Re:Why Why Why Why? by Tadrith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Typically, I'm pretty accepting of Windows, being a Windows developer and all. But I get the distinct feeling that very few features are getting added to any of their software anymore while the amount of time it takes to get to a release has become much longer than it used to.

      SQL Server 2005 was worth the wait, but they didn't really change as much at the core of it. The facelift on the UI was definitely needed, and a welcome change, but there didn't seem to be enough changes to warrant the time it took to get it released.

  40. Expression/Sparkle by smallguy78 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Watch this video: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1578 43 You'll see Expression comes in 3 flavours and is geared at a kind of Flash alternative (working with XAML). Only one of the 3 versions is geared for photoshop type useage. It's more geared towards vector graphics from what I can see.

    --
    Nothing costs nothing
    1. Re:Expression/Sparkle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expression, Sparkle, PixyDust, Rainbow Rain... Ah - My kids love the My Little Pony range of toys.

      Good to see Microsoft appealing to the young web programming market...

  41. Default is not enough by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

    As mentioned in this previous story http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/27/ 0128236, photoshop is one of the most desired linux ports.

    It's an awesome application. I'm no expert, but i've seen my sister who's into graphics play with the latest photoshop version, and I tell you MS isn't gonna beat that product just because they want to. Take a look at this tutorial video http://media.studio.adobe.com/linked_content/en/ac s2ttL08/phscs2ttvpgrid.mov or many others on http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/newfeature s.html.

    People may be inclined to use whichever browser or media player comes preinstalled (because in the end any browser does the job, alghough us techies may be picky) but this is different. People who buy Photoshop (which costs several hundred bucks) are mostly doing professional-level work with graphics or photography, and they use photoshop because it is the best product around. Even if MS can come out with a half-decent basic graphics app you can use to remove red-eye fron your pics they're not going to take much of a chunk of photoshop's profits. I think it's a big waste of MS money.

  42. Spread Yourself too Thin by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1

    If you spread yourself too thin, and still promise release dates, then you end up with multiple crappy products instead of one good one.

    M$ is known for that... because why buy Windows, when you can buy Windows + Office + Windows Server + SQL Server?

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  43. Partial replacement here today - Aperture by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd personally like Apple or a Mac software outfit like Panic to create a Photoshop competitor. With APIs like Core Image and Core Data available now, much of the groundwork is already laid for a great OS X application.

    Aperture is one such application, making heavy use of both Core Image and Core Data.

    While not a replacement for all of Photoshop, it replaces much of what a photographer would otherwise do in Photoshop. And that helps clear the way potentially for something smaller that does the remaining, more graphic-design and pixel oriented work in a better way.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Some Business by Cranky+Weasel · · Score: 1

    "Seems like the Good Ship Redmond is adrift. They are preoccupied by too many projects going on..."

    Sometimes when a business wishes to tackle more than one thing at a time, they expand by hiring additional "employees". Then, if the projects are of sufficient size, they hire "managers" to "manage" the employees. As complexity increases, they add "departments", and "department heads".

    Using these basic building blocks it's possible for a single company to simultaneously address many projects and products.

  45. Re:The Cliché of "Killer" - SIG Question by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    What is is the was of what shall be. ~ Lao Tzu

    Are you sure that isn't Bill Clinton speaking?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  46. Notable quote from the article by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 0

    Wayne Smith, the guy from Microsoft: "It's not been that someone's been beavering for all these months and getting nowhere."

    Maybe Slashdotters can take some tips from this guy on dating.

  47. Yeah, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, great. Photoshop is already famous for it's amazingly high cost and the fact that it has somehow gotten itself to be the only one that the average joe knows about so they won't use alternatives. I mean, Paint Shop Pro (formerly Jasc, now Corel) costs about half the price and, as nearly as I've been able to tell in all the time I've been using both, has all the features of Photoshop, only PSP runs more smoothly. Then there's the GIMP, which is also quite capable and definitely quite free. Why do we need a MS product that will take over Photoshop's current position making the average joe's image editing IQ drop 20 points, cost 10x as much, and make people even more ignorant of the alternatives?

    1. Re:Yeah, Great... by Bassman59 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, great. Photoshop is already famous for it's amazingly high cost and the fact that it has somehow gotten itself to be the only one that the average joe knows about so they won't use alternatives. I mean, Paint Shop Pro (formerly Jasc, now Corel) costs about half the price and, as nearly as I've been able to tell in all the time I've been using both, has all the features of Photoshop, only PSP runs more smoothly. Then there's the GIMP, which is also quite capable and definitely quite free."

      Yeah, yeah, great. Try using the Gimp for, say, color separations and pre-press stuff. Try using Paint Shop Pro for that.

      PhotoShop was always more than cropping pictures and optimizing them for the web! It was designed to prepare images for print production. If you don't need those features, then maybe something else will work. If you DO need those features, then PhotoShop is the standard tool, and as usual, the cost of that tool is in the noise compared with the revenue one derives from using it.

    2. Re:Yeah, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah, great. Try using the Gimp for, say, color separations and pre-press stuff. Try using Paint Shop Pro for that.

      My examples were more to demonstrate the point. Try using MS Paint for it while you're at it. That said, you probably can do that in PSP. I've never had to do color seperations per se, so am not sure, but, I'm thinking you'd want to simply make three new adjustment layers each set to show only one color, hide the background, and then later combine them when you're done back into a single layer. One thing you may wish to try to remember is that when I refer to alternatives, I don't mean Photoshop CLONES. PSP is not meant to be an exact clone of Photoshop made by someone else. In other words, to do whatever it is you wanted to do that actually requires you to split up the colors (and I have personally never had to do this once in the years I've been using it for many many various image editing tasks -- most of which were far more complex than cropping and resizing) you may actually want to do it a different way in PSP or the GIMP versus Photoshop. You can't immediately say PSP is a bad evil product that can never compare to Photoshop simply because you don't see a shiny little button that says "seperate colors" waiting for you. I can't comment much on "pre-press stuff" since I don't really know what "pre-press stuff" refers to exactly, but, I'm willing to bet that there is a tool or command to do each and every task you'd like. The ONLY thing Photoshop has over PSP is that no one writes plugins for PSP so it has to rely on trying to support Photoshop plugins, which can sometimes be buggy (but, then again, when I tried the nVidia DDS Photoshop plugin, it crashed Photoshop every time I tried to use it and PSP never crashed on me, so I guess this goes both ways...)

      I'm not saying Photoshop doesn't have it's merits, I'm saying it's overpriced for what it does considering you can use the alternatives. If you ask me, PSP and Photoshop should cost the same amount and both should be taught, then, people can use whichever actually suits them best. In fact, it's my hope that now that a big name like Corel has bought PSP, perhaps it will see more of the popularity it deserves. Even if there is something Photoshop can do that PSP can't, PSP can do a LOT of what Photoshop does (I still say all) and is therefore a good product for a large number of people, besides, there's probably a thing or two that PSP does which Photoshop does not. I've used both for all my various tasks ranging from creation of a multi-layered vector-based image to even little things like resizing and cropping, and I just like PSP's controls, layout, and etc better but haven't found a feature lacking in one that was in the other, so I choose to use PSP despite having to deal with the lack of support and the fact I have to carry a flashdrive with a copy of it with me since no one has it. (Not to mention that the flashdrive copy crashes when I exit due to something about how it's not installed correctly -- or for that matter, installed at all -- but, then I can't actually install it on those systems, so I have to just live with the crashing.)

  48. Interface, GIMP and a goat's ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever tried clicking on goat's ass? Its not only difficult, it also poses various problems not normally faced by somebody using GIMP. Among many, one such problem is getting the goat's excrement sprayed all over your face.

    As for GIMP interface, try using Windows Gimp Deweirdifyer. Might help.

    Now wipe off that goat shit from your face.

  49. Must be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With this little racket M$ has going, I wonder how long it'll take before they start "competing" in the real world?

  50. i'm hilarious by bobalien · · Score: 1

    when are they going to start work on a windows killer?

  51. why "default" isnt necessary enough by moochfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Don't know what it is? Just Google it." (google.com)

    "Old and useless? Ebay that shit." (ebay.com)

    "Wanna know more about me? Facebook me." (facebook.com)

    "Blog it." (blog.com)

    "Sneeze? Use a kleenex."

    "Red eye? Photoshop it." (Photoshop)

    It's not very easy to unseat the champion when its name is synonymous to the activity it is dominating in.

    1. Re:why "default" isnt necessary enough by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Which is one reason that the trademark is not longer nearly as strong once it becomes synonymous. If "photoshop" becomes demonstrably equivalent to "edit an image", it becomes a generic trademark. At that point, it's not nearly as protected, and you can look forward to "Microsoft Photoshop".

      http://www.answers.com/topic/genericized-trademark

  52. Shadows in the Gimp by commanderfoxtrot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Shadows in the Gimp are easy; just a little bit hard to find.

    It's in the Script-fu menu, along with some other goodies: the (simple) process is explained here: Drop shadows and borders in the Gimp.

    --
    http://blog.grcm.net/
    1. Re:Shadows in the Gimp by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      That's just the thing, isn't it. Why is it in some menu called 'Script-fu'? What the heck does that even mean, anyways? I don't care if they're scripts, modules, compiled code, third party binaries, or some funky math you do to it in a text file. What is it that the menu describes? Tools? Actions? Filters? It needs to be something the user can relate to, not something the developer came up with to be all cute and relates well only to him.

      I use Gimp on the few rare graphical tasks I wind up doing simply because that's what I have access to and it (mostly) works. However, even though I use it for my work, I find the term 'gimp' more aptly applies to the program than the acronym it is named after. It is ugly, it is kludgy, it is unwieldy, and it is difficult to work with. The 'Gimpshop' rewrite helps some, but nothing really makes GTK look good, it seems.

    2. Re:Shadows in the Gimp by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1

      If you want it layed out like PhotoShop, there's always GimpShop

      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    3. Re:Shadows in the Gimp by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I think you should read the gpp's last sentence ...

  53. Years Ago... by hullabalucination · · Score: 1
    Years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we actally looked at CMYK values to do prepress work.

    Years ago, you gave all your contone stuff to a HELL or Scitex operator to throw on his $200,000 scanner and process on his $1 mil mainframe which backed up the scanner (one of the shops I worked at). Or lacking that, you gave it to an experienced process camera operator with a separation filter set and the proper lighting and film-back screen-angling jig. At least, if you gave a damn about how good your skin tones came out.

    I fixed an awful lot of color work done on PCs back then where the originator thought that they had done a splendid job, but when you looked at the work on a color-calibrated monitor or ran your Chromacheck, the skin tones had a wonderful greenish pall (too much cyan...and the Chromacheck, since it was pulled from the sep negs, is a very good indication of what will happen on press). The heck of it was, most of these people in the Graphics Dept. at the IBMs and General Dynamics and EDSs and American Airlines of this world went through life thinking that their output was hunky-dory when in fact some guy like me at the service bureau was correcting their color for them on another platform.

    1. Re:Years Ago... by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Or, you could, you know, LOOK AT THE CMYK VALUES. White skin tones have a pretty narrow range of recognizable values -- if someone is giving you images with too much cyan, I'm sorry. You don't need a 4kx4k scitex scan from a medium format transparency just to run an eyedropper over the skin tones in Photoshop. I worked in a lot of $million shops in the NYC magazine industry who had bought into the color calibration du jour all through the 90s, and for some reason those of us who were doing printing before "DTP" took off were the only ones the prepress guys would thank for having such well-prepared files.

      I agree, there are a lot of untrained/inexperienced people making great color on thier monitors and sending it out thinking everything will be fine. The solution is not to fix the monitors and give them a false sense of security (though today you can get pretty close), it's to make them understand CMYK.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  54. Paused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  55. Er, that's not the way it works by thealsir · · Score: 0

    Editors are supposed to sensationalize stuff to get ad revenue. At least, that's the way it works in practice

    --
    Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
  56. Different groups & business units by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    To think that MS should be pouring their efforts into Vista is silly. Apart from the Brooks law (adding manpower to late software makes it later), the fact of the matter is that Microsoft consists of many business units, focussing on differnet deliverables.

    So when someone says that they're delaying product xxx because of product yyy (in a different BU), then most likely they're talking crap and just using this as a smokescreen. ie. the photoshop killer is underperforming and is going to be late and they need some sort of excuse.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  57. Ok, for the Final Time, it was NEVER one... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The tool "Microsoft Acrylic Graphic Designer" or "Microsoft Expression Graphic Designer" was NEVER meant to be even in competition with Adobe, especially Photoshop.

    Do the idiots writing this stuff or posting reference to this crap even use Photoshop in their life, let alone the MS product?

    As a developer, it was VERY CLEAR from MS to us DEVELOPERS that Acrylic was a new XAML based drawing application FOR MAKING WINDOWS WPF/WinFX APPLICATION AND WEBSITES.

    PERIOD.

    The features it offers are not even comparable to Photoshop, the closest product on the market that would be 'comparable', would be Deneba Canvas, but Acrylic Designer has NO WHERE NEAR the features set or even tries to.

    It is made to make Graphics in XAML format to be put into the "Interactive Designer" or dropped directly in a WPF/Vista/WinFX application, as they are in XAML format.

    Why XAML? Because the elements are common objects and not just lines, and can be accessed and programmed to react or move as the application requests, not to be a new 'picture' format or even a SVG killer. I can take a freaking XAML ID/NAME tag and have the line move, reshape, float around, respond to a user clicking it, and all in a 3D Space.

    And XAML itself can also define 'behaviors' for the elements in the file format. Not something a normal standard like SVG even tries to do. When SVG is for designing Windows applicaions and can define not only visual elements but also can do object collision and movement, then we will talk.

    I get so tired of the "SVG Killer, Flash Killer, Photoshop Killer, Acrobat Killer, blah, blah, blah..."

    (And Flash is the closest to reality with expression and XAML, as some people have went on to write little application that are Flash based, although it is not powerful enough to write full scale Windows applications, and here is where the difference lies, not to mention the level of programming difference, the full 3D workspace and design environemnt Microsoft has created.)

    Flash will live on doing what it does, but it won't be used to make Windows Applications... Geesh.

    MS Expression are tools and technologies for DEVELOPING applications in the new 'Presenation Layer' concept of Windows Vista and WinFX runtime components for XP.

    If you don't believe me, actually go use these applications in a 'development' environment (they are free downloads even) and see how they are 'designed' to be the new generation of 'development' tools, adding in elements for 'graphic designers' that are programmible. Your first clue would be to notice that code that lays behind the drawing, and all the items of the drawing have the cute little Object properties that looks more like somthing from Visual Stuido/Visual Basic. And trust me, this is not somthing you find in Photoshop.

    If you use Acrylic and think it could ever be a Photoshop killer, then you are smoking something the rest of us are not. It is not even the same type of drawing tool - anyone know Vector/Bitmap differences? Anyone?

    Please save our sanity and stop the crap about every thing Mirosoft is doing as being a 'Killer' of some other companies products. Especially development design tools killing Photoshop, jeeez.

    Even the new Tablet PC from MS were iPod Killers, how far can you go with this? What next, "The new clock in Windows Vista is a Killer of your home grandfather clock."

    If you are posting a link to an article, it should at least be something you 'get' or understand, or you should not be allowed to write the pretext for the link. PERIOD.

  58. Photoshop Killer? by kubevubin · · Score: 1

    From what I've read about this application (formerly called Acrylic), it isn't intended to be a Photoshop killer. I believe this is supposed to be more of a combination of Photoshop Elements and (maybe) Illustrator. Maybe Fireworks. In either case, it's more of a dumbed-down design tool. If I'm not mistaken, isn't this supposed to be the tool that's supposed to assist programmers in actually doing their own design work?

  59. Not even a contest by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Acrylic is definitely no threat to the Adobe Creative Suite.

    Download Acrylic and play around with it - it's clearly targeted at lightweight users and people who just want to fool around with graphics - the interface is dumbed down quite a lot and it only offers a tiny fraction of the features offered by the Creative Suite.

    That's not to say it's not a good app - all I'm pointing out is that it's apparant that Acrylic is targeted at a different userbase, not graphics professionals.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  60. Ahem... by hullabalucination · · Score: 1
    White skin tones have a pretty narrow range of recognizable values...

    I don't know what planet you're from, but my planet has people in it exhibiting a range in skin tones from just-off-white to damned near black. Narrow range? Try a few million discreet possible CMYK color values on a 16-bit-per-color-plane image--even for "white" skin (I'll humor you here, but any good photographer or makeup artist can tell you that it's a completely meaningless term). But I guess you have all of these stored in your brain so you don't need to reference an image on a color-calibrated monitor or do a color check, do you? Never mind that the good ol' eyedropper tool can't predict for you how that color adjusment you just did off the top of your head will reproduce on different printing presses/paper stocks. Oops.

    1. Re:Ahem... by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Skin tones are nowhere near as complicated as you'd think. M & Y are roughly equal across races, cyan will be less than 25% of that in a european, less than 10-15% in an asian, and 50%+ in an african. Obviously you can split the difference depending on where someone's skin tone fits in those general parameters -- plus add a bit more yellow for some asian tones, or a few points of magenta for a tanned individual.

      Once you go darker than fair, white skin, (a 5%-10% gray value) a few percentage points of cyan isn't going to affect the color much. Skin tones cool dramatically when you get darker skin, so the fragile, easily contaminated yellows are quickly forgotten.

      This is painting 101, which teaches a lot more about reproducing skin tones than any photo 101 or makeup 101 ever approaches. These are not new problems, and they were all solved centuries ago by guys using paint.

      Never mind that the good ol' eyedropper tool can't predict for you how that color adjusment you just did off the top of your head will reproduce on different printing presses/paper stocks.

      That's why you run color checks. Anyone who blindly sends a totally new file for a project on a totally unfamiliar paper deserves to have 50,000 bad copies of a magazine filling their garage while they look for a new job. Learning about paper and checking proofs is part of the job, and you shouldn't trust your monitor to do it, and you shouldn't trust a prepress guy to do it. "My CMS said the color was right" is not a valid defense to crimes against printing.

      That lovely tone your CMS presents is going to look completely different depending on whether you're using UCR or GCR, yet there's no way to represent that on a monitor, no matter how well it is calibrated. That bright, saturated color is going to look totally different on an uncoated paper than it does on coated and varnished paper, but there's no way in hell your glossy backlit monitor is going to represent such a dramatic shift in perception. Your whole job is going to look different if it is printed in Mississippi during summer than it will if it is printed in Ontario during winter. Again, there's no way in hell your monitor can account for that.

      Mathematical colormetric correction is a far cry from actually getting color RIGHT.

      Note that nowehere have I said color management is bad or useless -- I use it, and you'd be silly not to take advantage of it. But it is not a silver bullet, and it will not save a designer or prepress engineer from ignorance about how color is reproduced or what CMYK tones are realistic for a desired color.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.