PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended - Coming Soon




MacRumors
Mar 8, 2007, 01:07 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Adobe announced (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ps_psext_info.html) that their spring release of Adobe Photoshop CS3 will bring a new "Extended" edition aimed at 3D and video professionals. Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended will include all the features of the standard version, but also incorporate several new features:

Render and incorporate 3D images into your 2D composites. Stop time with easy editing of motion graphics on video layers. And probe your images with measurement, analysis, and visualization tools.

Mac customers, in particular, have been waiting for Adobe Photoshop CS3 as it represents the first version of Photoshop that will run natively (at full speed) on Apple's Intel Macs. A beta version (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/12/14/adobe-announces-photoshop-cs3-beta/) of CS3 has been available since December.

Adobe is offering a FAQ (pdf) (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/pscs3_faq.pdf) about the new Extended edition. No pricing announcements have been made yet, but the release has been reported to be on March 27th (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/05/adobe-to-ship-cs3-march-27th/) at a special event in New York.



iAlan
Mar 8, 2007, 01:09 AM
As discussed elsewhere in related ythreads, many pro users have been waiting for this -- and other pro software -- to run natively on the Intel based Mac's. It is great news that the wait is now over -- and I am hoping Apple comes out with new pro machines in the not too distant future.

I remember seeing stats somewhere from a survey of pro users as to when they would shift to the Intel based Mac Pro's. I can't remember the exact results (and can't find the survey anywhere) but a majority of users said they were waiting for Photoshop and other software to be native. But if there is no news of new Mac Pro's how long will people hold out even after the release of key pro software?

I know I am waiting for the next gen Intel Mac Pro's to replace my G5 tower -- but I am not a pro user -- I just want a new machine!

I hope Apple and Adobe have been working together around the release (and shipping) dates so that those of us waiting can have all new stuff to play with

DMann
Mar 8, 2007, 01:11 AM
As discussed elsewhere, many pro users have been waiting for this -- and other pro software. I am hoping Apple comes out with new pro machines in the not too distant future

All the pieces are beginning to come together.......;)

pdpfilms
Mar 8, 2007, 01:14 AM
So is this a photoshop with a dumbed-down after effects built-in?

powermac_daddy
Mar 8, 2007, 01:28 AM
I'm going to China in June. I should pick up a copy of CS3. It's only 10RMB, $1.50 or so.

zigziggityzoo
Mar 8, 2007, 01:32 AM
I'm going to China in June. I should pick up a copy of CS3. It's only 10RMB, $1.50 or so.

Do yourself a favor and buy 100 and sell em on eBay. (or through PM's Here!)

Just kidding...of course.

powermac_daddy
Mar 8, 2007, 01:48 AM
Do yourself a favor and buy 100 and sell em on eBay. (or through PM's Here!)

Just kidding...of course.


Yeah... Good idea. $50.00 each. I will buy 50,000 copies. So, I can make $2,500,000.00 I'm going to be the next Bill Gates in 5 years.

ericschmerick
Mar 8, 2007, 01:49 AM
I live in Shanghai.

"A Friend" bought CS2 several months ago for 30 RMB (abt $4). I have, er my friend has, trouble finding mac SW for much less than that, but maybe you have a "source"?

By the way, my "friend" also told me that the version of CS2 he got was about 2x slower than it should have been. When he checked the "version" number of the build, he found out it was some kind of debug build. So, he thinks what you get on the street for $3-4 isn't always so great! He's since gone back to using his properly purchased CS version, and is eagerly awaiting downloading a properly legal version of CS3.

On the other hand, my "friend" also has a copy of aperture which he got for free from an authorized apple dealer (tai ping yang shu ma guang chang ping guo dian nao shang dian - they were unwilling to sell it to him because it would take x weeks to arrive, and so would only give him a copy - it's the chinese model, pay for hardware - never EVER pay for media of any kind - legal versions of stuff aren't even AVAILABLE in most stores - hard to come by). If it was available for purchase online, he would have bought it, but it's not. Anyway, he's had no problems with that.

juanm
Mar 8, 2007, 01:51 AM
Edit: self-censorship. I don't want to be known as a pirate (which I'm not now I earn my own living, gone are the student years) on a forum I like so much.

;)

powermac_daddy
Mar 8, 2007, 01:52 AM
30 RMB? that's expensive. Go to Guang Zhou. It's around 10 - 15 RMB ($1.5 - $2).

powermac_daddy
Mar 8, 2007, 01:54 AM
by the way, it's in English... Not in Chinese.

Evangelion
Mar 8, 2007, 01:56 AM
Is this the "how much did you pay for your pirated software?"-thread?

Analog Kid
Mar 8, 2007, 02:05 AM
Ok, video frame editing in Photoshop, while tedious, makes some amount of sense. What the heck is 3D modeling doing in there? Wouldn't it make more sense as a separate app, or maybe as a part of Illustrator?

As if the PS interface wasn't confusing enough as it is, now they're adding the capability to model my house? Weird.

Do we know what the components of CS3 are going to be yet?

ftrtrk
Mar 8, 2007, 02:32 AM
I don't understand this,

is the new feature supposed to be video editing software like FC???

Apple and Adobe wouldn't want to be competitors in this area, right? Shouldn't the new FCP and FCP:Extreme be able to do whatever the new CS3 add-on is?

:confused:

macjackpro
Mar 8, 2007, 04:14 AM
I would think this would be for scientific applications.

Also, CS3 "introduced" March 27, released Spring 2007.



Ok, video frame editing in Photoshop, while tedious, makes some amount of sense. What the heck is 3D modeling doing in there? Wouldn't it make more sense as a separate app, or maybe as a part of Illustrator?

As if the PS interface wasn't confusing enough as it is, now they're adding the capability to model my house? Weird.

Do we know what the components of CS3 are going to be yet?

Analog Kid
Mar 8, 2007, 04:15 AM
I don't understand this,

is the new feature supposed to be video editing software like FC???

Apple and Adobe wouldn't want to be competitors in this area, right? Shouldn't the new FCP and FCP:Extreme be able to do whatever the new CS3 add-on is?

:confused:
Adobe Premier is their video editing app, and Adobe dropped support for Mac around the time FC came to be. They're now bringing it back to the Mac platform, and yes, they're competing. I'm guessing Adobe thought their customers would switch to Windows and stick with Premier, but it probably didn't work out that way.

This is another one of those dicey situations where Apple is competing aggressively against one of their major 3rd party developers. So far it all seems good though...

joshysquashy
Mar 8, 2007, 04:20 AM
In addition,
both versions of Photoshop run on ... all editions of the new Windows VistaTM
operating system, except the Starter and Home Basic editions. Detailed system requirements will be available in Spring 2007.

Sounds like many vista users are gonna get short changed - it won't run on Vista Home Basic or Starter, they will be forced to upgrade if they want Photoshop!

Why are Adobe doing this? What is missing from these products that make it unable to run on them? So glad there will only ever be 1 version of Mac OS X

ATG
Mar 8, 2007, 05:09 AM
Sounds like a mini after effects to me.

Why not just improve on PS integration with AE? Less work and more valuable because AE will always have more features than this PS "Extended".

zblaxberg
Mar 8, 2007, 06:17 AM
[url=http://www.macrumors.com]No pricing announcements have been made yet, but the release has been

This is what I'm worried about...there's so many programs...how much will this cost?

aquaibm
Mar 8, 2007, 06:18 AM
It sounds great!:cool:

Chaszmyr
Mar 8, 2007, 06:23 AM
Sounds like many vista users are gonna get short changed - it won't run on Vista Home Basic or Starter, they will be forced to upgrade if they want Photoshop!

Why are Adobe doing this? What is missing from these products that make it unable to run on them? So glad there will only ever be 1 version of Mac OS X

The real question is why does Microsoft rip off their customers by severely crippling the versions that most people buy?

hvfsl
Mar 8, 2007, 07:03 AM
The real question is why does Microsoft rip off their customers by severely crippling the versions that most people buy?

Because they don't really want you to buy those versions, but the more expensive versions instead. They have just run out of new and interesting things to do, so they have moved onto the squeezing as much money out of people stage.

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 07:32 AM
The real question is why does Microsoft rip off their customers by severely crippling the versions that most people buy?
Because they don't really want you to buy those versions, but the more expensive versions instead. They have just run out of new and interesting things to do, so they have moved onto the squeezing as much money out of people stage.

How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)

Sdashiki
Mar 8, 2007, 07:52 AM
Ok, 3D effects...my take.

I think it will be some sort of Flash 3D thing.

Where, lets say you have some text, and you want a 3D object behind the text, lit properly to go with the drop shadow or gradient on the text.

you could render this innumerable ways in a 3D app.

or

you could possibly use something like Swift3D (http://www.erain.com/) and create this object on a Photoshop layer, and be able to rotate/manipulate the object to get it to match the rest of the scene.

sounds neat, but without more details, one can only speculate.

Small White Car
Mar 8, 2007, 08:11 AM
How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)

Has it really gotten to the point where we have to explain the difference between hardware and software?

PLEASE tell me that's not what you're really asking us.

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 08:22 AM
Has it really gotten to the point where we have to explain the difference between hardware and software?

PLEASE tell me that's not what you're really asking us.

I'm asking about two different companies setting a product and price structure to encourage upsell.

It's pretty common in the software world to enable features that ship with software, after an additional fee is paid.

Quicktime Pro is an obvious case. How is Windows Vista Anytime Upgrade (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/windowsanytimeupgrade/overview.mspx) really any different from Apple's Quicktime Pro upgrade? (Well, except for the fact that Vista doesn't keep popping up adware dialog boxes asking if you want to upgrade now.)

(At least the anytime upgrade loads new software from the DVD - the QTpro key just unlocks features that are already present, but just crippled.)

john7jr
Mar 8, 2007, 09:01 AM
QT Pro is a $30 add on for those who might actually need it, and it's the poorest example of your argument. iLife is a better example where Apple bundles, for free, the goods that most people want - for free.

Vista jumps by triple digits between versions. You can hardly compare a $30 jump to a $100 jump in products.

Windows Vista Home Basic: $199
Windows Vista Home Premium: $239
Windows Vista Business: $299
Windows Vista Ultimate: $399

QuickTime: Free
QuickTime Pro: $29.99

See what I mean?

steve_hill4
Mar 8, 2007, 09:03 AM
Because they don't really want you to buy those versions, but the more expensive versions instead. They have just run out of new and interesting things to do, so they have moved onto the squeezing as much money out of people stage.

First off, I wouldn't run it on Vista at the moment, it's about as stable as your mad Aunt Ethel who believes that tin foil wallpaper stops "them" finding her. It states it will run on XP SP2, so run it on that if you have it. If you are a Pro Windows user, you will have either stuck with XP or gone for Vista Premium/Business/Ultimate. I don't think too many 3rd world countries with Starter will be accusing Adobe of crippling the young talented photographers with little money in the lands and for Home Basic users, the word basic gives it away they don't want to run Pro apps. They'll be fine with Elements surely?

For Mac users, it states 10.4.8 as a requirement at the moment. Are we getting a flood of complaints from people with 10.4.7? No, just run software update. How about 10.3.9? No, most here are now running Tiger and certainly few Pro mac users appear to still be using Panther. Since this is a Mac message board, I would have assumed a debate on it running on older versions of OSX or lower priced machines would have been more relevant than trying to slam Microsoft/Adobe for stopping that poor Ethiopian farmer with an interest in photography from taking the full benefit from CS3 Extended.

steve_hill4
Mar 8, 2007, 09:08 AM
QT Pro is a $30 add on for those who might actually need it, and it's the poorest example of your argument. iLife is a better example where Apple bundles, for free, the goods that most people want - for free.

Vista jumps by triple digits between versions. You can hardly compare a $30 jump to a $100 jump in products.

Windows Vista Home Basic: $199
Windows Vista Home Premium: $239
Windows Vista Business: $299
Windows Vista Ultimate: $399

QuickTime: Free
QuickTime Pro: $29.99

See what I mean?

How about Aperture up until recently not running on much beyond the latest PowerMacs/Mac Pros, PowerBooks/MacBook Pros and iMacs?

Surely that's a good example of how Apple often sets the bar extremely high on the hardware requirements front to run certain apps deemed for Pros? I know Aperture does require a good chunk of juice, (I use it myself on my MBP), but beforehand, if I got a good spec Mac Mini, (not too far off a compatible iMac then), to hook up to my TV to do some work whilst relaxing in my sitting room, I would have to break the license agreement to do so because Apple deemed all models of the Mini too low spec to run it, irrespective of what was actually inside them.

john7jr
Mar 8, 2007, 09:20 AM
The first version of Aperture was just poorly written (or written with it's standards set too high?) and would only run on the fastest hardware as a fact, not as some marketing ploy to keep older hardware out. I cracked it to run on my Mirrored Door - it ran like crap without the newer video card.

The recent "mini" screw up may have just been an unintentional presumption on the part of a docs writer who had never used one of the new ones. It was my impression they had since changed it hadn't they? Still, the mini may have not been supported by the recommended system specs, but I can't imagine that it violated a license agreement to run it as you claim? You'll need to share some source for that one. Did it require a crack to run it?

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 09:21 AM
The real question is why does Microsoft rip off their customers by severely crippling the versions that most people buy?

Let's see, Amazon is selling (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B00081I76A/ref=s9_asin_image_1/103-1352956-2965442) Photoshop CS2 for $579.

If you check Dell's or HP's websites, for example, you'll see that if you spend as much on the Vista PC as you spend for the Photoshop license you'll probably get Vista Home Premium with the package. Some deals have Home Premium and an LCD monitor for the price of the Photoshop license.

Even on the $399 PCs, upgrading to Home Premium bumps the price to $429.

More to the point, it looks like any Vista PC that you'd want to use for Photoshop (for example, one with a dual-core CPU) will have at least Home Premium as standard. Home Basic really only shows up with low end systems.

The term "rip off" isn't really that appropriate.

dude-x
Mar 8, 2007, 09:24 AM
I noticed that in the CS3 beta, it installs a folder called Matlab that allows you to interface with Matlab.
I haven't checked out the demos but I think its cool that you can use Photoshop CS3 Extended to do graphical edits of data.

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 09:28 AM
QT Pro is a $30 add on for those who might actually need it, and it's the poorest example of your argument. iLife is a better example where Apple bundles, for free, the goods that most people want - for free.

Vista jumps by triple digits between versions. You can hardly compare a $30 jump to a $100 jump in products.

Windows Vista Home Basic: $199
Windows Vista Home Premium: $239
Windows Vista Business: $299
Windows Vista Ultimate: $399

QuickTime: Free
QuickTime Pro: $29.99

See what I mean?
Silly Mac person, quoting list prices for PC hardware and software. ;)

http://www.centralcomputers.com/commerce/catalog/results.jsp?category_id=1259&start=26&czuid=1173367627348

Windows Vista Home Basic: $89
Windows Vista Home Premium: $115
Windows Vista Business: $145
Windows Vista Ultimate: $195


"You can hardly compare a $30 jump to a $100 jump in products"

Actually, $30 is exactly the upgrade price to go from Home Basic to Home Premium when you buy an HP system...

Also note that your own list prices show a $40 jump between Home Basic and Home Premium - it's a little disingenuous to say "$100 jump" when your own data shows that it is $40.

mixel
Mar 8, 2007, 09:36 AM
Ive thought the same bad stuff about Vista since i read their price charts. Crippleware OS is a hell of a lot different to a cheap optional add-on, or hardware differences between separate lines. it irks me! Also the 32bit/64bit completely separate Vista versions.

Totally off topic anyway though. :D

CS3 is getting more and more interesting.. I'm still using PS7, Illustrator 10 and DreamweaverMX heh, so i'm not sure if i should get the whole suite or just buy the things I'll use separately. :/ Dilemma.

ed: also, OEM and retail are always v different, considering Apple only seem to do retail(?) copies of osX it seems fair to post about the retail prices of Vista, as 90% of people will be buying those if they're upgrading. (most people with computers don't actually know about this stuff..)

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 09:51 AM
Also the 32bit/64bit completely separate Vista versions.
http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88364

"Ok I can tell you for certain what is in the Vista Ultimate Upgrade box, because I have one in my hand. It states quite clearly that it contains 32 bit and 64 bit DVD's"

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 09:57 AM
Crippleware OS is a hell of a lot different to a cheap optional add-on

Is OS X crippleware in your mind then, since it doesn't contain all the features of OS X Server? :eek:

If not, then when is it OK to charge more for additional features, and when is it "rip off crippleware"? ¹

Apple and Microsoft are following very similar practices here, but the "Apple good, Microsoft bad" mentality is really causing some posts with tortured logic...

¹ Answer: "OK when Apple does it, rip-off when Microsoft does it"

Small White Car
Mar 8, 2007, 10:26 AM
I'm asking about two different companies setting a product and price structure to encourage upsell.

It's pretty common in the software world to enable features that ship with software, after an additional fee is paid.


Which is why it would be more appropriate to compare software to software. I'm not gonna get too into that argument, though, 'cause it looks like you've already moved on to talking about Quicktime. Ok, that's a much better comparison.

But you seem to be opperating under the misconception that we are complainnig that there are ANY differences in Windows versions. That's a silly thing for you to argue against since it's not what anyone is complaining about. We are all saying that Windows has too MANY versions.

So by pointing out 2 versions of Quicktime or 2 versions of OS X you aren't proving a darn thing. If there were 4 or 5 versions of Quicktime, you'd have a point. But there aren't.

I never heard anyone complain about XP Home vs. XP Pro. That's because 2 choices is perfectly reasonable. (Photoshop and Photoshop LE...Final Cut or Final Cut Express...iPhoto or Aperture...and hey, like you said, Macbook and Macbook Pro) The list of split product lines is very, very long. No one here is arguing against that. But somehow you feel the need to defend it.

That's not the issue. The issue is the much larger number of Vista versions out there. I continue to think it's stupid and I've seen nothing yet that has convinced me otherwise. You've spent a lot of posts arguing against things that we aren't really saying.

guzhogi
Mar 8, 2007, 10:47 AM
Which is why it would be more appropriate to compare software to software. I'm not gonna get too into that argument, though, 'cause it looks like you've already moved on to talking about Quicktime. Ok, that's a much better comparison.

But you seem to be opperating under the misconception that we are complainnig that there are ANY differences in Windows versions. That's a silly thing for you to argue against since it's not what anyone is complaining about. We are all saying that Windows has too MANY versions.

So by pointing out 2 versions of Quicktime or 2 versions of OS X you aren't proving a darn thing. If there were 4 or 5 versions of Quicktime, you'd have a point. But there aren't.

I never heard anyone complain about XP Home vs. XP Pro. That's because 2 choices is perfectly reasonable. (Photoshop and Photoshop LE...Final Cut or Final Cut Express...iPhoto or Aperture...and hey, like you said, Macbook and Macbook Pro) The list of split product lines is very, very long. No one here is arguing against that. But somehow you feel the need to defend it.

That's not the issue. The issue is the much larger number of Vista versions out there. I continue to think it's stupid and I've seen nothing yet that has convinced me otherwise. You've spent a lot of posts arguing against things that we aren't really saying.

This goes to everyone: companies might make different versions of software for different people. Like w/ OS X client vs. server, most people don't need server admin software. In some cases, it's good to have different products for different groups of people. You don't need a Mac Pro if all you do is write e-mails and listen to music. No reason to pay $2000 when all you need is a $700 Mac mini.

However, if a company made a word processing app and made you pay $10 more if you want to type 500+ words and $20 for 1000+, that's a rip-off.

Another thing is, if a company makes different versions of a product (software or hardware, doesn't matter), they should make sure they differentiate the versions enough so that the average consumer can know which is best for them. Unlike most of you who read MacRumors, the average consumer is pretty stupid about computers. They don't know what the difference between a "Santa Rosa" processor and a "G4" processor. As long as it's fairly obvious what kind of people the hardware/software is good for, it's fine.

Rhema
Mar 8, 2007, 11:02 AM
I know this question has already been asked somewhere else on these boards, but I can't really find it..but....

Does anyone know if this new CS3 suite will contain Dreamweaver and Flash? I haven't seen anything official on this, but it seems like it would make sense.
Also, I've read that the new illustrator is supposed to have great integration with flash, but if they aren't updating flash in this release, that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm guessing the answer is yes..but..I dont know.

I have Studio MX right now, and I am looking to upgrade to 8, but I don't want to go out and spend the money on 8 if 9 is about to come out, even if it is a month or so.

ChrisA
Mar 8, 2007, 11:05 AM
Ok, video frame editing in Photoshop, while tedious, makes some amount of sense. What the heck is 3D modeling doing in there? Wouldn't it make more sense as a separate app, or maybe as a part of Illustrator?

They said the feature was to be added to "CS3". They did not say it would be in Photoshop. CS3 is a suite of applications.

In professional movies, one common file format is just a directory filled with still images where the filename is the frame number. Typically still images are scanned from film at 2K or even 4K resolution (That's 2 or 4k pixels across the long edge of the frame) One common thing you do with a PS like tool is "dust busting" removing srtaches and dust from the scan. Or maybe yu "clone out" a utility pole or wire in a background. Very non-exotic "special effects". Lot's of uses for frame at a time painting

iJawn108
Mar 8, 2007, 11:19 AM
I'll stick to using the beta for a long while. ;)

theheadguy
Mar 8, 2007, 11:38 AM
30 RMB? that's expensive. Go to Guang Zhou. It's around 10 - 15 RMB ($1.5 - $2).
Wow... and I thought my dad was the only the cheapest of the cheapskate americans in the world. :rolleyes:

djkirsten
Mar 8, 2007, 11:46 AM
I'll stick to using the beta for a long while. ;)

they wont let you remember. Come april or may your "ticking time bomb" software will no longer work. we all will be forced to conform. :(

wordmunger
Mar 8, 2007, 11:48 AM
One question answered: the PDF makes it clear that Elements will be ready at the same time as the rest of CS3 -- that's actually the only app I'm interested in.

celticshade
Mar 8, 2007, 12:05 PM
It seems from the Adobe PDF that Windows Vista™ Starter and Home Basic editions will not be supported running Photoshop CS3 and Photoshop CS3 Extended.

RedTomato
Mar 8, 2007, 12:11 PM
So glad there will only ever be 1 version of Mac OS X

No there won't. Expect Mac OS 11 to come out in several years time. Maybe 2012 or something like that. It's anyone's guess what it'll be called - OSX2 or OSX Pro - but it's coming.

A bit of history:

Apple System Software 1 came out in 1984
Apple System Software 2 came out in 1985
...
...
Apple OS 9 came out in 1999
OS X came out in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X

Only a fool would say that Steve Jobs doesn't have a team working on Apple OS 11 right now.

irbdavid
Mar 8, 2007, 12:14 PM
Is OS X crippleware in your mind then, since it doesn't contain all the features of OS X Server? :eek:

OS X is crippled until you shell out for TextMate :D

guzhogi
Mar 8, 2007, 12:33 PM
No there won't. Expect Mac OS 11 to come out in several years time. Maybe 2012 or something like that. It's anyone's guess what it'll be called - OSX2 or OSX Pro - but it's coming.

A bit of history:

Apple System Software 1 came out in 1984
Apple System Software 2 came out in 1985
...
...
Apple OS 9 came out in 1999
OS X came out in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X

Only a fool would say that Steve Jobs doesn't have a team working on Apple OS 11 right now.

You are right in that there are different "versions" of OS X, as in 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, etc., but that's not what he meant. By "version" he means there's just one kind of of Mac OS X available now (OK, 2 if you count server), instead of like Windows Vista which has starter, home basic, ultimate, and whatever.

Sdashiki
Mar 8, 2007, 12:36 PM
Why hasnt adobe said what CS3 is?

Creative Suite should or sort of is a SUITE of programs, not just a version of a program.

I mean, sure CS and CS2 were Photoshop 8 and 9 respectively.

but I hate to hear CS3 all the time with no actual suite of programs.

Can you buy the Creative Suite 3 (bundle) that comes with PS, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Flash etc etc all at once?

It seems like the PDF is worded so that its PS CS3 thats coming out and no word on anything else!?

SiliconAddict
Mar 8, 2007, 12:40 PM
The real question is why does Microsoft rip off their customers by severely crippling the versions that most people buy?

#1 - starter isn't even available to your average customer. Starter is what gets bundled with these uber cheap PC's being sold to 3rd world countries at stupid discount prices. All in the name of trying to counter the "free" OS's that are out there.

#2 - 99.97% of systems that run Home Basic probably won't even run Photoshop. Starter is designed for the 5 year old PC that can barely run XP let alone vista. Add to that the fact that pretty much any system shipping with Vista is shipping with Premium or better. Also Basic is designed for people who use there computer for 4 or so things. Web, mail, photos, chat, etc. The target market isn't for people wanting to use Photoshop.

Someone is making a mountain out of an anthill. Yes its retarded in the fact that MS is neutering the OS simply to differentiate each version. The core code is the exact same from version to version. I've never been a fan of this type of selling strategy, be it MS or any other software manufacturer.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread on Photoshop. I can't afford Photoshop. And realistically I don't need even half the features of Photoshop. I would really like to see an updated version of Photoshop Elements for Mac.

ChrisA
Mar 8, 2007, 12:56 PM
....I can't afford Photoshop. And realistically I don't need even half the features of Photoshop. I would really like to see an updated version of Photoshop Elements for Mac.

You and a million others.

I've asked the question several times on photography related forums: "If you are a photographer what features in Photoshop do you use that are not present in Elements?" So far the answer is "very little to nothing", but mostly "nothing". My bet is that 99% of the people who want to process images from their digital camer would be best served by PSE. A native PSE will be a bigger deal as most simple can't justify the cost of CS3.

I will buy CS3 because I can get it for the upgrade price but if not for that I'd go with the combination of Aperture and PSE. but for most people iPhoto/PSE makes the best setup.

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 8, 2007, 12:57 PM
How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)

Macbooks aren't crippled. Crippled would mean that the features are there but locked down. There's no express card slot hiding under the shell of my macbook, nor are there lights that no one can see in the keyboard. But I still have a superdrive, nice display, great processor, identical bundled software and the exact same OS as standard, the exact same airport extreme card, bluetooth, the iSight camera, the same magsafe adapter, the same IR port for Front Row, and not to mention better battery life. It's also $500 to $900 cheaper in standard spec. = /

Lots of shareware provides features that are limited until you buy the key to unlock its features. VisualHub limits the size of movies you can convert until you purchase the product key. Many other programs are made this way.

ijimk
Mar 8, 2007, 01:11 PM
I wonder what the price difference will be. :confused:

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 8, 2007, 01:16 PM
I'm hoping that they price it around the same as CS2. Damn Adobe and their market domination, they charge whatever they please, and we pay for it. :p

RedTomato
Mar 8, 2007, 01:38 PM
Damn Adobe and their market domination, they charge whatever they please, and we pay for it. :p

Not really. The shiver me timbers and a bottle of rum option is always available if they price it too high. I've been told that's partly why they created PS Elements - to offer a legal option to people who couldn't afford the full suite (and get their money).

I suspect 90% of the stuff in PS is relatively cheap to create, or has already paid for itself in older versions. That's what went into PSE. The remaining 10% is probably where the real money and hard professional effort went into, and is being kept for the full CS.

puckhead193
Mar 8, 2007, 01:52 PM
i want to see the price before i make a judgement

AvSRoCkCO1067
Mar 8, 2007, 02:22 PM
#2 - 99.97% of systems that run Home Basic probably won't even run Photoshop.

Bull. Let's see a link - when I open my Sunday paper, every computer under 500 bucks (and that is a LOT of computers) runs Windows Vista Basic.

Sdashiki
Mar 8, 2007, 02:23 PM
i want to see the price before i make a judgement

What is this price anyway?

JUST Photoshop?

or is it for a full SUITE of apps?

Sure, PS CS3 is nice, but Id rather have ALL adobe apps UB.

guzhogi
Mar 8, 2007, 02:29 PM
Bull. Let's see a link - when I open my Sunday paper, every computer under 500 bucks (and that is a LOT of computers) runs Windows Vista Basic.

He didn't say 99.7% computers can't run basic, he said 99.7% of the computers already running Basic can't run Photoshop. Doesn't anybody read?

Analog Kid
Mar 8, 2007, 02:45 PM
The real question is why does Microsoft rip off their customers by severely crippling the versions that most people buy?
Ever hear people complain Macs are too expensive compared to Dell or whoever? Having a useless bottom end product allows you to advertise on low price while selling higher price product.
They said the feature was to be added to "CS3". They did not say it would be in Photoshop. CS3 is a suite of applications.
Um... Click the link...
In professional movies, one common file format is just a directory filled with still images where the filename is the frame number. Typically still images are scanned from film at 2K or even 4K resolution (That's 2 or 4k pixels across the long edge of the frame) One common thing you do with a PS like tool is "dust busting" removing srtaches and dust from the scan. Or maybe yu "clone out" a utility pole or wire in a background. Very non-exotic "special effects". Lot's of uses for frame at a time painting
That's why I figured frame editing makes sense in Photoshop but would be much nicer if the video app handled it and propagated the changes forward in time...
How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)
Oh dear... Not having a lighted keyboard is now considered crippled?! How pampered we've become...

iris_failsafe
Mar 8, 2007, 02:53 PM
Is ps3 extended delivers, with a FCP extreme machine you could match an infern anyday. Imagine being able to open a 4K file ,paint in photoshop and just play it in real time. Photoshop tools are so much better than any compositor out there...

NICE:D

50548
Mar 8, 2007, 03:33 PM
How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)

Well, it's a kind of funny comparison when 95% of the world is expected to run Winblows, and MS just screws up with such a ridiculous marketing...besides, it's absurd to have software that cannot be run on the same version of that OS, even if you have different offers for consumer/"pro" people...Vista should be Vista, period.

And since when is the lack of ExpressCard or lighted keyboard crippling a Mac? :rolleyes:

BobbyDigital
Mar 8, 2007, 03:37 PM
I wish they'd just include the extra stuff in the standard photoshop, rather than charging more for stuff that should be included with the ~$500 price tag.

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 04:56 PM
And since when is the lack of ExpressCard or lighted keyboard crippling a Mac? :rolleyes:
I'll withdraw the "lighted keyboard" from the crippling claim, that's a luxury frill that is good for differentiating the higher end.

Not having any expansion slots, though, is a crippling issue for many. The cheapest $599 Dell laptop has an ExpressCard slot. In the rest of the Intel world, it's mainly the super small/light systems that might be missing an expansion slot.

How many readers of this forum got a MacBook Pro solely because the MacBook didn't have a slot?

mixel
Mar 8, 2007, 08:23 PM
http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88364

"Ok I can tell you for certain what is in the Vista Ultimate Upgrade box, because I have one in my hand. It states quite clearly that it contains 32 bit and 64 bit DVD's"

Ok, thats not whats been reported in lots of other places. I guess thats only the retail box though, given the OEM versions you can buy them seperately. Good for MS putting them both in the retail box. :D

Is OS X crippleware in your mind then, since it doesn't contain all the features of OS X Server? :eek:

If not, then when is it OK to charge more for additional features, and when is it "rip off crippleware"? ¹

Apple and Microsoft are following very similar practices here, but the "Apple good, Microsoft bad" mentality is really causing some posts with tortured logic...

¹ Answer: "OK when Apple does it, rip-off when Microsoft does it"

No, I'm not stupid and I'm well aware of the similarities, but I draw the line before it gets to the extent that it is in Vista, as do most people I've spoken to about it. (mostly XP using non-mac users) Not including server features in a consumer OS makes some sense, as keeping things simple is part of the Apple mindset. Having 3+ different versions of a consumer OS *does* seem stupid, and will only confuse consumers.

I don't have a "MS=bad" mentality at all. Most people don't want or need the extra server features in a normal OS, and the distinction between the 2 versions is very clear. Is there a good reason for MS to cut out functionality? it seems crippled for no good reason. Why the hell would a business user want to *not* be able to "burn DVDs easily" - this is rudimentary stuff that's supposed to be the core of the 'vista experience'. (thats just one example of many) They *can* charge more for bells and whistles (ultimate edition) so they do. I find that v different to the distinction between server/consumer editions.

At least with XP you had what is really one OS (from an end user perspective), the difference between pro/home being admin & geeky stuff. The big gaping holes in some editions of Vista mean some people's vista is lame whilst others is pretty nice. That strikes me as a massive step backwards.

PS: I got a macbook because i didnt need the expresscard slot. ;)

AidenShaw
Mar 8, 2007, 09:04 PM
Why the hell would a business user want to *not* be able to "burn DVDs easily" - this is rudimentary stuff that's supposed to be the core of the 'vista experience'.

You miss the point of what the Vista Business edition is all about.

It has *nothing* to do with the *user*.

It's about central IT management of the company-owned endpoints. Where "endpoints" is in the thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands. (My company's IT department supports about 40,000 PCs for about 25K users. We got a company-wide email today from IT, saying "Please close your applications and log off at the end of the day - IT will install the Daylight Savings Time updates and reboot your computer during the early morning".)

"Burn a DVD" ??? IT doesn't even want you to be able to read a CD - so the DVD drive can be disabled remotely if that's what IT policy requires.

USB drives give IT departments nightmares - plug your portable music player into the USB port, and it'll be ignored because IT policy has disabled USB storage class devices. They allow USB HID class devices, so your keyboard and mouse will work fine.

SiliconAddict
Mar 8, 2007, 09:32 PM
Bull. Let's see a link - when I open my Sunday paper, every computer under 500 bucks (and that is a LOT of computers) runs Windows Vista Basic.

Do you know how much memory those PC's run? I see them ever day in my work. 256-512MB. If you think these basics systems are going to ship with 1GB you are delusional. Yes the CPU and HD will be fine. Hell the GPU will handle the basics. Its all about the RAM in these things. Again any system running basic wouldn't run Photoshop to begin with. And anyone who is willing to spend more on the photo software then their computer.........

mixel
Mar 8, 2007, 10:21 PM
You miss the point of what the Vista Business edition is all about.
It has *nothing* to do with the *user*.

From MS's vista page:
"Windows Vista Business is the first edition of Windows designed specifically to meet the needs of small businesses."

If its all to do with admin and big deployment, then why not just let the admin disable those features, rather than cutting functionality which *could* be helpful to the end users out?* It just means some companies will be forced into paying more for crazy "non-business" versions because they need/want something silly from a better version. When i first read the version comparison chart i was disgusted tbh.

A lot of home based business users will likely buy business edition because its the best value for feature-set. I thought the "enterprise edition" is for giant companies. The business version is sold as consumer software in highstreet shops in a big shiny blue box.. Wouldn't MS just sell it direct to businesses like they do the enterprise version..? Why would a retail box even need to exist? I think the loads of versions thing is crazy tbh. People "got" the XP tier system, and it never felt like you were getting short-changed.


Oh, and apple sell you a 5 mac license for not much more than a 1 machine license. MS don't even come close to that.. I wish they did, as I'd like to upgrade 3 windows installations at home.. But anything less than Business Edition and Vista thinks it would be a *downgrade* so won't allow it, and Business has chunks of functionality missing. Even at OEM prices 3 copies of Premium sucks.. So, yeah from my perspective on this MS do seem excessively money-grabbing.

And this still has nothing to do with Adobe CS3, hehe. Sorry.

BiikeMike
Mar 8, 2007, 11:20 PM
they wont let you remember. Come april or may your "ticking time bomb" software will no longer work. we all will be forced to conform. :(

PSST!! Just set the date back on your computer! Thats what I have been doing with Lightrom whilst I wait eagerly for a large brown truck to appear with an Adobe box for me


I really can't wait until the 27th to see what is actually included, what the new stuff is, and what the prices are. I have been waiting quite a while to upgrade my stuff, and with my new business, I'm going to wait until everything comes out, and in one fell swoop get a Mac Pro, CS3, and either Final Cut Studio or Premier!

I'll be the poorest new bid-ness owner of all time!

aafuss1
Mar 8, 2007, 11:35 PM
I'm still using Photoshop Elements 3 on a PC-I see no reason to upgrade to v 5.0. And I wouldn't buy a copy for my Mac until it's a UB like Photoshop CS3

sonicboom
Mar 9, 2007, 12:37 AM
How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)

"most people" don't need (or buy) those features.

Mac Kiwi
Mar 9, 2007, 02:48 AM
I am guessing one of the big 3D companies has gotten Adobe to build in better 3d functionality,plus some extra 2d multi pass compositing abilities....maybe 32 bit layers?

AidenShaw
Mar 9, 2007, 07:36 AM
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
How is this different from the way that Apple cripples the systems that most people buy?

(No ExpressCard or lighted keyboard on MacBook, few options (e.g. good graphics) for iMac, ...)

"most people" don't need (or buy) those features.

I'm *defending* the practice of market segmentation by tiering features.... Both Apple and Microsoft do this.

Many people don't need or want the full-blown Windows Media Center - Microsoft makes it possible for them to pay less for a version of Vista without that feature.

Counter
Mar 9, 2007, 10:58 AM
I know this question has already been asked somewhere else on these boards, but I can't really find it..but....

Does anyone know if this new CS3 suite will contain Dreamweaver and Flash? I haven't seen anything official on this, but it seems like it would make sense.
Also, I've read that the new illustrator is supposed to have great integration with flash, but if they aren't updating flash in this release, that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm guessing the answer is yes..but..I dont know.

I have Studio MX right now, and I am looking to upgrade to 8, but I don't want to go out and spend the money on 8 if 9 is about to come out, even if it is a month or so.

Unfortunately I don't think merging CS3 with Studio makes any sense. Studio is really a separate package. Many, many, I'd guestimate the majority, who want Photoshop and Illustrator don't want Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks. And if the packages were merged the price for CS3 would go through the roof.

I say unfortunately, because the core of my work packages wise is in CS2 & Studio 8. And a merger would mean Studio as a Universal Binary right with CS3. I'm really wanting a Mac Pro but have heard they are considerably crap at running Flash 8 through Rosetta. With comments like "at least Photoshop through Rosetta works". Wish I could find more info on how well Studio 8 works through Rosetta.

arkmannj
Mar 9, 2007, 12:15 PM
I hope the extended edition will have an "Educational pricing" option. I'm a Multimedia major and I can see some value in this.

I'm curiouse to see how many flavors of the "CS3 Suite" there will be and what each of them will/won't have included.

Here's to wishing for some CS3 Ultimate edition package, for 299 Education price :-)

macenforcer
Mar 10, 2007, 02:30 AM
Microsoft SUCKS. End of story.


OSX is STILL 10yrs more advanced than Vista and if MS thinks I am shelling out $399 for every computer I own they have lost their minds. I will seriously never upgrade until the price comes down to $99 for ultimate.

You know what I hate? Having to call MS to register my copy of XP like 50 times since I have owned it and getting hassled EVERY time. Freakin $300 for XP pro when I got it and nothing but trouble. If Apple ever goes to online registration to use OS X I will switch to Linux.

Long live OSX and no online registration.

avus
Mar 10, 2007, 03:47 AM
As this thread going downhill quickly with more than half of the posts being off-topic and boring discussions of Microsoft Vista and Apple hardwares, I am very disappointed with a lack of moderation here. Why did people even post here if they aren't using Photoshop or at least interested with PS CS3 Extended???

spicyapple
Mar 10, 2007, 04:27 AM
Ok, video frame editing in Photoshop, while tedious, makes some amount of sense. What the heck is 3D modeling doing in there? Wouldn't it make more sense as a separate app, or maybe as a part of Illustrator?
Hey you know... video frame editing was available in PS since the beginning of time with the Filmstrip format. It was cumbersome, but in those days, if you wanted a PS lensflare in your radius video, you'd do it manually. It was a pain, but made a man out of the weak and lazy.

PS as a graphic designer's tool is already bloated as is, but it's nice to see Adobe breaking off into a separate line to cater to video pros and scientific applications. There are so many cutting edge visualization tools, that PS2 already is a dinosaurr.

Cult Follower
Mar 10, 2007, 09:50 PM
I'm glad to see adobe is changing things up a bit, but I wish they would hurry it up...I guess its better to have a stable release then for them to push it out quickly.

dkirlew
Mar 13, 2007, 01:38 PM
I know this question has already been asked somewhere else on these boards, but I can't really find it..but....

Does anyone know if this new CS3 suite will contain Dreamweaver and Flash? I haven't seen anything official on this, but it seems like it would make sense.
Also, I've read that the new illustrator is supposed to have great integration with flash, but if they aren't updating flash in this release, that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm guessing the answer is yes..but..I dont know.

I have Studio MX right now, and I am looking to upgrade to 8, but I don't want to go out and spend the money on 8 if 9 is about to come out, even if it is a month or so.

Dreamweaver will be in the new CS3. GoLive will remain only as a standalone application. Flash CS3 (new name of Flash) should be in the new suite. Fireworks is rumored to replace Image Ready.

Counter
Mar 13, 2007, 02:46 PM
Dreamweaver will be in the new CS3. GoLive will remain only as a standalone application. Flash CS3 (new name of Flash) should be in the new suite. Fireworks is rumored to replace Image Ready.

Awesome. This is great news for me. Thanks for the update. :)

Edit...

How much is the suite gonna cost? lol