Photoshop for OS X 398
MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"
Killer App! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Killer App! (Score:3, Funny)
Big day for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Ciryon
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2)
Probably because their primary user base continues to be artists and publishers, which is a bit disturbing. PC users don't upgrade their OS's every time one particular app gets upgraded (although it helps). I've seen users run Office XP on first editions of Windows 98.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, you're comparing apples and oranges. The last time the PC world saw such a tremendous shift in the capabilities of the base operating system was August 1995, when Windows 95 was released. After that, it's been incremenetal upgrades to the OS.
In late 1995, quite a lot of people were upgrading their applications (at least, the ones from MS) in order to take advantage of what Windows 95 offered. In this case, the particulars may be different, but the essence is the same: a lot of people want to upgrade their software to take advantage of what Mac OS X brings them.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
The equivalent in the PC world was the shift to the Win32 API (debuted (really) in Windows 95) from 16-bit apps, which happened in 1995. The equivalent shift in the mac world is OSX with the Carbon and Cocoa API's, in 2001. What application running under Windows 3.1 are people still running without upgrading -- I'd like to know!
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2)
What application running under Windows 3.1 are people still running without upgrading -- I'd like to know!
In my experience, lots of Medical devices are still running off of Windows 3, DOS 6.22, or similar. Probably due to the computer being bundled with the $50,000+ device
Luckily, newer devices [appliedbiosystems.com] come with Windows NT and a seething mass of Oracle, Java, and homegrown code. The software corrupts itself every month or so, and doesnt work if you put a password on the Administrator account.
So as far as Microsoft OS controlled devices go, I prefer ones running on older operating systems to dumb to be cracked.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Ciryon
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
This holds back adoption of OS X because there's no compelling reason to invest in cocoa for such a small base and even carbon can be put off until you start getting requests for it. Well, now all those artists are going to start swapping over and that's going to make it easier to shift the programmers as well.
Upping the OS X adoption rate and moving forward with their competitive strategy is important for Apple because it provides unique abilities that you don't get on Windows boxen (like system wide spell checking for all Cocoa apps). It's going to be nice to be able to have functionality bought once and spread throughout your application irregardless of vendor. Apple wants us to get to that nice world fast because *that's* going to get a lot more boxes sold.
Remember, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They like OS X primarily because it's a driver of their hardware sales, and only secondarily because of the money they get directly from it.
They need to sell more boxes because if they get to a magic point, one very clear advantage will appear, PPC chips are smaller and cheaper to produce at like volumes. At that point, Macs will not only become the easier to use alternative, they will become the cheaper alternative as well.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
All *very* important to Apple's strategy. Without Apple's groundbreaking software, the hardware sales would be hurt quite a bit.
My neighbors bought iMacs for the house. They don't care about Photoshop. What sold them was the idea of iMovie and iTunes. That's what sells a ton of people.
Apple's a 60/40 hardware-software company, I'd say.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:3)
Apple makes great hardware, then develops software which encourages people to go out and get that hardware. I think this is a win-win situation. Apple is motivated to make top of the line software, much of which they release for free... and we are motivated to buy new machines. For some people it is still a better idea to stick with their old trusty machines they have had a few years, but for those of us that are interested in burning our own movies and such, Apple makes it worth it to be a customer
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I know certain average users who won't buy Apple machines today because they think they're primarily for video editing, something they're simply not interested in. Most users still (and a few years ago, when the iMac became a hit) want decent Internet. I know, this flies in the face of most internet appliance sales, but the predominant thing I hear is "I want to do word processing, a few games, and get on the net".
Apple is more like a systems company. (Score:2)
Since they produce the hardware, OS and key applications they have the ability to provide a well thought out user experience.
Slowly people are beginning to understand that this approach makes a lot of sense.
Apple is like SUN or SGI only they don't target big systems. They do small ones. Machines sold by all three of these companies have value long after they should when performing tasks the machines were designed for. Why?
Because the machine was designed to get the job done right!
PC machines are general purpose. This was an advantage earlier because it was cheaper. Now that more of the high end functionality is cheaper, Apple can come in and make a very nice machine at a price most people can afford.
So really they are a systems company. Their value is in the whole solution, not the cheap combining of parts.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's a 60/40 hardware-software company, I'd say.
In terms of money its more like 91/9 hardware-software (At least for this last quarter - $114 Million software revenue; $1.261 Billion hardware revenue) In terms of effort you may be right but that 40% effot in software is done to drive that 90% in hardware revenue.
Most of the software is given away for free with a hardware purchase. Even the software they sell is part of a strategy to sell hardware. Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, etc are intended to be "Killer Apps" that drive hardware sales in a particular niche market. The 9% of revenues is just a nice bonus. The only software that doesn't fit this bill (though it used to) is Filemaker, which for that reason is not part of Apple but was spun off as a subsidiary.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2)
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:3)
Well, none actually. But that's because Microsoft only supports it back to Windows 98 (Why? Who knows. Probably it uses some kind of IE layer that came with IE 4).
"98 to XP or 2k or NT might be an architectual change, but it's the same application API so you better hope that will work, but then again 95 has the same API and MS has broken compatibility with 95 all over the board."
See above. Actually, think the changes from the 9x series to NT are pretty drastic, and represent a positive step for Microsoft (the more applications I can run without hosing my system, the better). The API may be similar, but many of the underlying file system and process creating calls are completely rewritten. The fact that most 9x programs (which relied on relatively open system restraints where they had pretty much free reign to do anything) run on the NT protected model with little modification at the front end is kind of amazing.
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Why would that be? OS X can run MacOS 9.x programs as well as MacOS 9.x - it just loads the classic inviroment like OS/2 loaded the windows 3.x program manager to run windows software. It's a bit slow to start but otherwise it works like a charm...
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
the thought process is basically "why would i run photoshop in os x under emulation [ yes, that's the mindset] when i can run it natively under os 9?".
Re:Big day for Apple (Score:2)
Dreamweaver UltraDev
Flash
Director
What OS? I dodn't catch it... (Score:3, Funny)
[OS X (Apple)] Posted by michael on Sun February 24, 06:21 AM
from the brighter-colors-and-whiter-whites dept.
MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"
to clear up some misconceptions (Score:2, Informative)
porting photoshop 7 to linux/KDE/ect would be about as easy as porting age of empires w/o wine. did i miss anything? i hope that clears up alot of porting questions
It's a great application (Score:2, Insightful)
other neat features (Score:3, Funny)
besides being OS X native, photoshop 7's text engine is gonna have spell check! whoo hoo!
<offtopic> just love the aqua-like slashdot logo on apple.slashdot.org</offtopic>
Re:other neat features (Score:2)
People don't do word processing per se, but if you're laying out a fairly complex advertisment with a half dozen lines of test, wouldn't it be nice to run a spellchecker over it quickly to make sure all's well?.. It's one of a handful of tools that Apple has included in the OS as a service and it's nice that companies are taking advantage of them..
Re:other neat features (Score:2, Interesting)
How refreshing.
...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:5, Interesting)
UNIX/Linux/BSD is neato, but I failed math, suck at logic, and can't grep to save my life. I'd like to play around with it and learn it, but I have no real reason to- and my experience with Free Software has been pretty nasty- I bitch about nonexistant intallers, suck-ass window managers, poor hardware support, and I'm told "FIX IT YOURSELF!"... and as a non programmer, I'd rather stick with something that already works for me to begin with.
Apple has brought UNIX to the desktop. Now I can run all of my happy fun day to day tasks and learn the bash (well, ZSH), discover the joys of suing to root and doing a kill 0 to see what happens, and generally have the best of both worlds. I see this as being rather relevant, really- if the company known for making "idiot friendly" machines can make UNIX useable for an idiot (or those of us that know a few lines of HTML, Lingo and BASIC)...and the companies that support that company port their apps.... then what the hell is keeping the rest of the world from following suit? Hmm?
Hell. With OS X, I can run Apache, X-11 apps, Gimp, Photoshop, Maya, Combustion, Quake.... dear gods, it can do absolutely EVERYTHING I NEED. I only need to run ONE OS for all of my art geek and computer geek needs. Hot damn. THAT is relevant.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies, in general, want NOT to release their source code.
Companies do like people that are willing to PAY for software (as in advanced cash).
Desktop users want computers where programs INSTALL easily.
Desktop users want computers where hardware configuration is TRIVIAL
And that's why OSX is perfect for you. It addresses your needs. Of course, it doesn't address the need of people that need freedom and flexibility for EVERYTHING that runs under their computers. I don't use Linux because GIMP is better than Photoshop, i use it because GIMP has what i need and i know that GIMP will eventually beat Photoshop.
In some way, i think i use Linux because i feel i'm on the right side. Microsoft used my money to lock me into their OS and after doing that, all my money started funding them so they could lock me into more of their stuff (like Office). I don't like that and many companies are starting to feel this way too.
Note: this is only my opinion. Please disregard it completelly if you don't agree. It's ok and i understand it.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, GIMP is about as good as Photoshop 3.0. But keep in mind that Photoshop 3.0 was released about 7 or 8 years ago. GIMP is great if you're just going to stick with web graphics, but if you ever have to do any print quality stuff, you'll see why the Adobe line of software is so popular. Where Photoshop really starts to kick ass is with large files (>200 MB, yes, this size files are common, many people work with them on a daily basis.) GIMP would slow to an unusable crawl just trying to render the 15 or so layers, but Photoshop is so highly optimized that it doesn't even flinch. In fact, the main speed bottleneck in Photoshop is the hard drive, not the program. Photoshop is one of the few expensive pieces of software that I consider worth the price.
The moral of this story is that while yes, GIMP is sufficient for people's needs (read: web site graphics, basic file resizing type things, etc,) it's not in the same ballpark as Photoshop. It's not even playing the same game, and it's ludicrous to say that "GIMP will eventually beat Photoshop." If you think that, you've never really used Photoshop.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:2)
mr.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:2)
That is... if I didn't have to pay for their hardware.
Contention. (Score:4, Funny)
Meaning that mentioning Macs is the best way to start a flame war?
Typo, or clever pun? You be the judge.
--saint
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Again - what's the point?
The point is the right tool for the job.
As you clearly point out in your post, "... I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in...", you have a much higher comfort level with computer technology then does Solios.
Thus the right tool is a Mac because that is what works for him/her.
It is not clear if you have ever used a Mac for any length of time. And your comment, "... and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac ..." makes clear your anti-Mac bias. So despite claims to the contrary it would appear that you avoid Macs not because you don't see the point but because you don't like Macs.
I don't know how many computers there are in a bunch. I have four on my home network. Two Macs and two PCs. I run Mac OS (9 and X) apps, Linux apps, Windows apps, Darwin apps, and even the occasional Palm app (via an emulator).
My prefered system is my TiBook running OS X which also allows me to run OS 9 and Darwin apps. I've installed VPC on it and can run Windows apps as well (albeit slowly).
For me the TiBook is the right tool for the job. And as I said above, that is the point.
Steve M
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:2, Insightful)
And if you absolutely must build your own PC, then no, don't get a Mac. If, on the other hand, you'd like an OS that lets you perform similar configuration at the software level, but still runs major consumer apps, OS X is a great choice.
Beyond that, when you're working in Photoshop or Word, you're not gonna notice a whole lot of significant differences between platforms. I share the view of a lot of Mac users that the user experience is better in a number of ways, but if you're happy with your Windows machines, no, there's probably no hugely compelling reason to switch, just as there's no real reason to be quite as anti-Mac as you seem to be.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be able to answer your own question. You use an operating system (Linux) in preference to other options for a particular task (as a server) because you think it's best for that task. For every task you can think of, there is probably an os/app combination that you feel will be the best environment for you to accomplish that task.
Many people believe that the Macintosh is the best platform for a set of tasks. You don't claim to have used a Macintosh, or benefitted from the graphics friendly technology which is baked into that OS, yet you suggest that you're correct and they're wrong.
Perhaps the work that you're producing on a Win32 machine is better than that of your coworkers. How much of that is because of the operating system involved? Perhaps the answer for you is "none," and since the OS doesn't help you on your current platform, you assert that it won't be a factor on other platforms.
But what if, after the unavoidable learning curve of a new platform, you discovered that you were 10% more productive on a Macintosh, because of the design and technology of the OS? What if it were only 5%, or the improvement were as great at 15%? What is 10% more time worth to you?
You don't use a Windows server. Why not? Isn't the windows server Good Enough? Or did you want the Best Available Option? Did you arrive at that opinion by reading trade magazines? By listening to your coworkers? Or by direct experimentation and observation?
If you're using your Windows desktop and Win32 ports of your preferred applications because they're Good Enough, that's your prerogative, but at least recognize your stance. But if you are interesting in using the best tool for the job, it is self-limiting for you to dismiss the Mactinosh without seriously exploring the platform.
Your final two questions:
"what's the point?" and
"why is this story even slashdot worthy?"
should also be immediately obvious. Because the availability of Photoshop for Mac OS X will go a long way toward making or breaking the short term success of Mac OS X. Photoshop dominates its market, and its not a trvial market. This release will directly lead to increased sales for both Apple and Photoshop. In a time when many tech companies are struggling, Apple and Photoshop will post numbers that are better than their neighbors. This will translate into increased positive media attention, which will create a more receptive management, which will lead to more OS X Macs in your office.
One last question:
Why is it a source of pride that none of your home computers is an Apple?
It helps make life easer. (Score:2)
More in-depth view at MacCentral (Score:5, Informative)
Macromedia & OSX (Score:5, Informative)
I bet you'll see a press release from Macromedia soon, but that'll be it for a while. They're behind schedule releasing Dreamweaver 5 and Ultradev 5, which is rumored to support dot-Net, and they've gotten to the point where they're just putting out open-ended Microsoft-style vaporware press releases [macromedia.com] instead.
Not to disrespect Mac folks, but I bet the profit involved in putting out Ultradev 5 with dot-Net authoring will result in a lot more sales than Dreamweaver in native OSX, but of course, that's just my betting. Then again, maybe this is the reason DW/UD5 is so behind schedule - maybe they're trying to release everything at once, including native OSX support and dot-Net authoring. I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't accept anything less when this thing finally comes out.
Re:Macromedia & OSX (Score:3, Informative)
Not to disrespect Mac folks, but I bet the profit involved in putting out Ultradev 5 with dot-Net authoring will result in a lot more sales than Dreamweaver in native OSX
That may be true, but they've also got to worry about the potential of lost sales. At the moment I'm using Dreamweaver 3 in Classic mode, which works fine but as more and more apps run native it becomes increasingly painful to have to do that. If GoLive is native before Dreamweaver, I may well consider switching.
As a side note, it's not just OS X support that is lacking. Full OS X support still isn't here yet. I just upgraded to Freehand 10 and have been dismayed to learn that pressure-sensitivity for my Wacom tablet isn't supported yet with it. So it's back to Freehand 9 in Classic for that, or look to Illustrator, which I hear does support it.
Re:Macromedia & OSX (Score:2, Interesting)
They'll devote a few people to Mac stuff now and then --you know throw a bone to the Mac people-- but for a company that started out Mac, their efforts are pretty lame especially when you get into the top of their higher level tools like Director and Authorware. It's pathetic that Authorware has become almost totally MS Windows(TM) focused to the point that you have to do your design work in Windows even if you're going to build your project with a Mac runtime if you plan on using one of the more recent versions of the product.
From what I've gotten off their corporate news server, that's the way THEY like it. They take a rather dismissive view of Mac in their Director/Authorware discussion groups and boy don't you even mention Linux unless you want to get all these communist stereotypes laid on ya. I wouldn't hold my breath for innovation from Macromedia on the Mac despite the similarity in the names and the former association that was implied by that connection.
The only solution is a decent icon/flow control development package for Linux, but we're still a long way from that. Until then, Macromedia is the solution to Microsoft's problems, not Mac's or Linux's.
It screams ... (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like the threading model and the new disk drivers have made a huge difference.. And of course better memory management
Here's a snippet from another BB.
Re:It screams ... (Score:3, Funny)
PC users know better though. The truth is that the only valid metric of computer performance is Quake III frames per second. :-)
Re:It screams ... (Score:5, Insightful)
> PC users know better though. The truth is that the only
> valid metric of computer performance is Quake III frames per second.
As soon as Mac users can figure out how to make money playing Quake III as opposed to using Photoshop, I'm sure they'll be willing to switch their performance metrics.
Re:It screams ... (Score:2)
That's easy. There is no shortage of positions where you can make money playing Quake III. Just find a company with a project that has no clear direction and poor management.There are countless thousands of these situations available at any given time.
I've seen highly paid engineers go for months at a time doing nothing but playing Quake and surfing the web. These positions don't tend to last that long, though, so you'd have to be prepared to move arouind a bit.
It also helps to find a group with a good technician/sysadmin who orders workstations outfitted with the right "goodies".
Re:It screams ... (Score:2)
umm, I think you're mixing up your Amiga fanatics with your Mac fanatics here?
Be sure to get the whole story... (Score:2)
These results have not been seen across the board.
J.J.
Upcoming. (Score:2)
It's been upcoming for months. I'll believe it when I can get my mitts on a copy from the Apple Store.
Of course, the way things are going, I'll be able to get that new G4 Amiga first.
--saint
Adobe vs. Corel (Score:2)
Re:Adobe vs. Corel (Score:2)
> PhotoPaint have been available for OSX quite
> some time now
And Macromedia's vector graphics application FreeHand has been available for almost a year. It has a few quirks in it, so it's clear that they rushed it out, but it was nice to have a native professional-grade vector graphics app available so soon after the OS X launch.
Re:Adobe vs. Corel (Score:2)
Re:Adobe vs. Corel -- I'll take Corel, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Tried The GIMP but wasn't impressed -- struck me as too much like an update of PaintBrush. Oh well.
Re:Adobe vs. Corel (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the professional graphics market that is key to Apple's success makes their living using Photoshop and was not even aware that Corel made a 'competing' product.
Why did it take so long? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know about the rest of the community, but while these features will be nice (I guess) the feature I REALLY wanted was running natively on OSX. And that has taken some time for Adobe to deliver.
When OSX came out, everyone asked "Great, when do we get Photoshop to run natively" Adobe's response was "We're not going to change our software release schedule, just because Apple has released a new OS."
Which from a business perspective seems a little weird, why not do a OSX port and charge people for it. There would be no shortage of customers willing to pay.
They chose not to. Ok fine but it seems like quite a long time ago, especially since a year ago, (don't remember, maybe it was 2 years ago) they showed an alpha version of PS 6 running at WWDC, that had been ported to OSX by one of the project managers. One person! And a self-admitted "average" coder. Said it took him a couple of weekends.
I can only guess that there was a heck of a lot of more work to do to create a good carbon app than Apple and Adobe originally led us to believe. Or maybe an earlire release just didn't fit Adobe's financial schedule.
Also of note. Lately Adobe has gotten in this bad habit of "announcing" new software, but not actually having it available, and then slipping on that date as well. See Adobe GoLive as an example. All kinds of press about it's release, a lot of users thinking its available for immediate purchase and use. Not the case though, still not shipping yet. Hopefully Photoshop will not take a similar course. They are saying April as of now.
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:3, Informative)
You are wrong about the APIs. The vast majority of APIs still exist in Carbon. It is true there are preferred APIs (e.g Event Handling) that are new. The old APIs are at least 80% intact and native to OS X. This is the whole purpose to Carbon.
Adopting the new event model and porting 68k assembly code would have taken some time in an application as complex as Photoshop.
What about TIFFany (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway... I'll probably end up with Photoshop (I've been using it since Version 2.5). But there are options for OS X. (And I'm sorry, but GIMP is not an option for professional photo editing... It's a step above most graphics software, but it's not Photoshop or TIFFany. (I actually think people who use and like GIMP on OS X should really download TIFFany3 Trial, I think they'll be pleasantly supprised).
OS X still in it's infancy (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, is it polished? yes. Is it solid? yes. Is it ready for the people? it already has been. But OS X is basically a new OS and some kinks are still getting worked out. A lack of serious apps, like Photoshop, was one of those kinks that needed to be worked out and it's a good thing that it's being worked out now.
I can't wait for OS Z!
photoshop?? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:photoshop?? (Score:3, Informative)
The GIMP is a pretty decent application and you can't beat the price, but it still has a long way to go before it becomes a standard part of a professional graphic artist's tool box.
Re:photoshop?? (Score:2)
This just proves that there are as many ways to work in Photoshop as there are users of the program. Hence it's beauty.
Flash and Fireworks are in late beta (Score:2, Informative)
Great... Content Control Features For Creators? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have always loved Photoshop. It's still got a big one-up over Gimp and other free and non-free alternatives. However, I incist that products that include content protection must NOT gain any support from anyone. This is without regard to the other features in a package. I'm sure 99.9% of Photoshop users can do with version 7 that they can do with 5.5 just as easily... without giving up little chips of freedom.
If a content house wants to keep images/documents secure, there's plenty of software to do it (encrypted filesystems, secure OSes, etc.). Encrypting/password-protecting documents with proprietary software is not the answer and must not be acceptable.
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "little chips of freedom" you're so afraid of giving up are the ability to steal. People these days are so busy proving Hobbes right about his opinion of human nature that they don't stop to consider why his "social contract" is necessary in the first place.
As someone whose livelihood depends on his writing, I can tell you that a secure way of distributing electronic media is vital to publishers and authors, both big and small, before they consider the internet anything more than a playground. Password-protected documents are, to me, a much better choice for content distribution than the alternatives, where it can only be used with one e-book reader and/or system.
You do not have a right to access content that you do not own. Ownership implies that you were given the password to access the data.
You don't present any valid reason that it is a bad thing other than your reactionary comment about the DMCA. Care to give some reasons that password-protected files are a bad thing?
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators? (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. Now I have to preach to the choir. *sigh* I thought we had technical readers on this site that could reason these things out. Here we go...
The schemes are proprietary. Non-public protection schemes can be changed by the owner without the consumers' knowledge. As a result, much power is given in the hands of corporations to limit access to your own content if you do not meet their approval. ("Upgrade to Photoshop 11, or we'll revoke the unlocking scheme in your existing software.") This does nothing but give more power to Adobe down the line. Soon, these protection schemes will work their way into all of Adobe's products and file formats (the latter of which I'm sure have already been implimented). With software becoming more and more connected to the developer, and subscription fees more and more likely on the horizon... what do you think that restricting access to the file actually means? Think about it!
There already exist a plethora of superior, open-standard protection schemes for securing data. These are, but not limited encrypted data storage/transmission (SSH/PGP/GPG/etc for securely sending your PS/PSD/PDF/SUX/etc to your coworkers), one-time access to a resource, and so on. Tools to secure data have been in development since long before Adobe entered the graphics market. These tools and open standards are far superior to any offerings Adobe can make. Why not just use them if you're interested in protecting your IP? I'm sure that Adobe is also not interested in really protecting your data. These schemes are almost always token just so that companies can leverage laws in their favor. This is not reactionary or imaginary. It's reality, stupid. And as mentioned, if you're serious about protecting your data, you use tried and true methds of doing it - not some buzzword feature fizzle in Photoshop. Otherwise, if you're going for protected public distribution, this is utterly useless.
It's stupid. Purely feature bloat. PkZIP added this feature years ago just so you had something to spend more money for. Easily cracked. However, if you crack something like this... you get sued. And not by the owners of the content.
You cannot protect your content once it has entered the public domain. It's not possible. There's always at least one person in the world that's smarter than you and will find a way around your protection. Adobe knows this but people are dazzled by their silliness. They think these features protect them. They don't. Makes Adobe stronger, doesn't increase security, and adds a tiny pebble as a stumbling block to anyone who wants to pirate content.
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators? (Score:2)
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators? (Score:2)
Damn those closed source proprietary bastards for making my life easier and more profitable!
I see Macromedia going the other way (Score:2, Interesting)
Why it took so long... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Carbonizing seemed easy, at first. When they demoed their "Carbonized" version of PS back in the day, there was really nothing to it. All they had to do was modify the non-complying API calls. However, since OS X's paradigm shifted so much, they also had to remake a lot of the interface to conform and work with Aqua. That is a very difficult proposition when you have a program with a code base such as PS.
2. Their apps also seem to have a lot of legacy 68k-centric code. While I'm certainly not an expert in OS X programming, I'm sure that it doesn't help to have 68k-based instructions when you're trying to have your program run on a modern PPC-based operating system with a new set of APIs. It just doesn't make things easy.
3. Trying to develop Carbonized apps is a difficult proposition because the API isn't set in stone. When the "Carbonization is easy" thing was first floated, most folks probably didn't think it was going to be still under development. A lot of people have likened it to a moving target. I would agree from my point of view, because if you don't know what is going to change from one CarbonLib revision to another, life becomes a bitch
There are probably many inaccuracies in this posting, but from my point of view, Adobe isn't completely to blame. Right now, I'm just keeping my fingers crossed and hope it was worth the wait.
lawsuit? (Score:2)
if so, why is apple so excited to have someone breaking their patent?
Take with 2 grains salt and call me in the morning.
NO (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NO (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because an app runs in OS X doesn't mean it's automatically Cocoa - most apps ported from OS 9 to X use Carbon, which, while it can still be a task, takes nowhere near the time it would take to port to Cocoa.
You won't see any OS X app running on *ix/X anytime soon.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are proved wrong within a year. With OS X infiltrating the hardcore *ix crowd, it's only a matter of time before someone climbs the Carbon learning curve and ports some cool stuff over. I suggest you educate yourself a little on the Carbon/Cocoa difference before you go batting others down.
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
All this means is that its linked to the Carbonlib (think share library)
rather than the Cocoa frameworks.
They're both native, its just that Cocoa apps get more features for free from the OS, which means they implement more of the standard OSX features.
Carbon apps can implement just as many of those features... but tend not to because it takes a lot of work to implement them (for instance, BBEdit supports the Services menu)
Photoshop will probably implement a lot of the Cocoa features even though its a Carbon app, simply because Adobe has the resources to do this (Just like Microsoft)
Another serious difference is that Cocoa can only currently be targetted via Objective C (ObjC++ too), Java and AppleScript (this is another major reason to use Carbon for Photoshop.
And thats about it.
Re:NO (Score:2, Informative)
> which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS.
I disagree, it should be easy once the GUI-kit of GNUstep is complete which should be later on this year.
Re:weird idea maybe (Score:2)
I can't tell if this new PhotoShop is a carbon app or cocoa app from the tiny screenshot at c|Net.
I'd say carbon since it still runs on Mac OS9 [adobe.com]
Re:weird idea maybe (Score:2)
First Classic's going to be deprecated by OSX 10.5 and probably gone by 11 (whatever they Chiat/Day calls it). After that, the push will be on towrds Cocoa for 12 because development gets very, very easy and you can write very little code yourself and get a functioning application with a lot of work being done via services.
I wouldn't doubt that in such a world Photoshop editing tools being available inside Quark would be a major inducement to the publishing market to pick up more copies of Photoshop. It would also reduce the temptation for people to move away from photoshop because a new tool has a few features the Photoshop of the moment doesn't have. They'll be available in Photoshop via services.
Re:Is this really news? (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand that you value free software, and for good reason. But Photoshop is THE app for OSX, as far as Apple's core graphics market is concerned.
Give please at least give credit where credit is due.
Re:Is this really news? (Score:2, Funny)
Therefore we choose to ignore the proprietary nature of OSX and Photoshop, we choose to ignore that Apple threatend to sue people who make themes that looked like OSX and we choose to ignore that Adobe invoked the DMCA to have Dimitry Sklyarov arrested because apple and adobe makes really, really cool toys. And nothing is more important to us slashdot-dwellers than really, really cool toys.
Re:OT: How to set preferences (Score:3, Insightful)
If Mac OS programmers tweak their code so that Cocoa apps they write run under GNUStep, that's a win for Linux. If traditional Unix vendors tweak their code so their stuff compiles and runs under OS X, that's a win for Apple. If Windows programmers conclude that the collective Unix world is once again large enough to start supporting it's a win for everybody in that world BSD and Linux included.
Get it now? It's important because it goes to market share, specifically desktop market share and the software development houses largely follow market share because they've got to pay the bills.
Re:Perfect... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Eh Eh, you cant (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why hurry? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:porting with gnustep (Score:2, Informative)
No, GNUstep actually follows the Cocoa API very closely. One of its goals is easy porting of Cocoa and GNUstep apps.
Re:Someone tell me... (Score:2)
There's very little that distinguishes the base image-editing capability of Photoshop ($600) from Paint Shop Pro ($99) and the GIMP ($0). The main differences being good CYMK and colour-matching support (and, personally, I find the GIMP's interface an absolute pain to use).
The range [procreate.com] of [alienskin.com] different [autofx.com] Photoshop plugins is what makes it what it is, and nobody's managed to beat it yet.
Pantone (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pantone (Score:2)
Re:Someone tell me... (Score:5, Informative)
1. Live CMYK editing (essential for real-world print publishing)
2. Font handling well beyond anything available within XFree86
3. Tight integration with tools like Illustrator (e.g. being able to specify vector masks using Illustrator's sophisticated Bezier tools and use them directly in Photoshop) and inDesign.
4. Peerless Postscript/PDF integration (i.e. produce Postscript that will actually rip on a professional imagesetter and produce usable output on the first try, instead of wasting hundreds/thousands of bucks on trial and error while your client stands around angrily looking at their watch)
5. Best of breed built-in algorithms for things like scaling, color correction, etc.
6. Polish.
I've used the Gimp, and I'm impressed by what it can do, but in a past life I also worked in a graphic arts shop, and I cannot stress enough the importance of some of the above items (particularly 1 and 4) in real-world paying applications.
If all you're doing is touching up vacation snaps, then Photoshop's big pricetag probably isn't worth it to you, but if you're trying to make a living pushing pixels, no other app comes close, and the Gimp (as cool as it is) isn't even in the ballpark.
Re:Someone tell me... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you can consider this; without Photoshop, GIMP may not have been developed (the way it was), just as Killustrator-->Illustrator and GNUStep-->NeXTStep...
I'm not saying GIMP is a clone or anything, but that Photoshop created the market that GIMP lives in right now.
Re:Someone tell me... (Score:2)
No need to trivialize what GIMP users do or don't do (like pay the rent)
Re:Someone tell me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: digital camera anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
dude, you are so misinformed (or you're trolling, in which case you are misinforming others):
So, basically what I am saying is that there are still a lot of people scanning from transparencies, and that some really good retouching tools (plus being able to deal with large files) are worth the price of Photoshop.
If all you ever have to deal with are teeny RGB images targeted to the web, by all means, use the GIMP... it'll get the job done. But if you ever have a need to edit a 75Mb CMYK image (a 2 page 8/-1/2x11 full bleed spread at 150 line screen), and you'll get fired (or not get another contract from the same people) if the color is off or if there is a huge scratch right through the middle of the model's face, then $150 for a Photoshop upgrade, or even $600 for the full version of Photoshop, starts to look quite reasonable.
Re: digital camera anyone? (Score:2)
If you're looking into good scanners check Agfa out. Expensive, but worth the money, especially if you're into photo restoration.
Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (Score:2)
Ouch. Well, I don't know that field, so if you say so....
Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (Score:2)
When you just have to get your work done as fast and as efficiently as possible, there just is no substitute for Photoshop. I wish the free software follks would stop harping on Adobe and actually develop something rather than pushing the currently very anemic OSS image editing software that exists. The argument that the GIMP can do anything Photoshop can just doesn't hold water. It's just pixel pushing, sure, but Photoshop allows you to push pixels a lot faster and in a much more non-destructive manner.
Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (Score:4, Informative)
I want to spend my productive time creating compelling graphics and UI designs that meet and exceed the needs of my clients.
Man, I'm a graphic artist because I don't ever want to be a programmer. I appreciate the hard work and creativity of programmers because they give me the tools I need to do my job efficiently and effectively.
For me, Adobe and Apple understand my needs as a graphic artist. The free software movement does not seem to be very interested in my needs as a graphic artist and is more interested in the needs of a radically different demographic, read programmers and network admins. That's fine, but don't try and tell me that I should become a programmer of OSS software just so I can use open source tools. Adobe, Apple and Macromedia meet my needs more than adequately.
Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (Score:2)
The dimbulbs are out again, I see. I guess any-fucking-body can get moderator points.
Re:wonderful... (Score:2, Informative)
Mousing? ha! MouseZoom, freeware. Great.
Do not confuse yourself by assuming that i am conceding the mouse action in OS X is not up to snuff, it is. But Mousezoom is for freaks like myself who want ridiculous mouse speeds, and don't care to spend any time cooking up their own solutions when they could be doing something more important like using their comps to pay the rent or posting at
heh.
just another reason to appreciate OS X, there are so many people making great little apps and tweaks for it...
"lest we forget, the world is so much more than black and white, there are infinite shades of grey" (attribution: me)
Re:wonderful... (Score:2)
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/02/0
As I pointed out, it does have some shortcomings (though I was very surprised to learn that Quark has a pathetic undo feature...maybe I shouldn't have been, since I've experienced many bad things with Quark.). However, it already has things such as text kerning which made Quark the default app for publishing (despite the fact that Quark doesn't actually do things well, it just does everything you need well enough that people have gotten used to it...except for opening files across a network without exploding and destroying them).
I think software like this and the GIMP have real promise, though I am aware that there are those few things (like getting colours right for print publications) that still tie many people (like me!) to Quark and Photoshop on MacOS.