Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Possibly because 95% of the desktops and laptops sold have case-preserving filesystems?

Is there a specific reason why Adobe is putting this limitation on these two products?

OT: what is a case-sensitive HFS volume under OSX anyway? My filesystems are HFS journaled (not case-sensitive) and they perfectly allow for filenames and directories with upper- and lowercase or mixed names. They show up as such in Finder, as well as on the UNIX shell.

So, how does a case-sensitive HFS+ filesystem differ from a standard HFS+ filesystem? And what is the big deal if a program doesn't support it?

I understand that 95% of desktop file systems have case-insensitive file systems, and probably 90%+ of OS X installations are case-insensitive. Still, I would think that if you're going to spend the time writing your software to support an OS, that you would take the time to support ALL users of that OS. It's this lack of interest that bothers me, since it requires that not just the developers, but also QA and management, be ok with not supporting it. This to me says that Adobe isn't really committed to the Mac platform.

I'm a developer, and the majority of my work is in Linux/Unix, so I support case-insensitive file systems all the time. It's not that difficult compared to the other challenges developers face. To me it just seems lazy not to put the effort forward.

I guess I can understand the lack of commitment, considering they're having to compete with iPhoto on the low end, and Aperture on the high end. Still, if you're not going to be fully committed to a product on the OS, then why bother in the first place?
 
It is. Or rather it will be. Specifically that as of March of next year all apps sold in the store must be sandboxed. Organizer cannot work sandboxed. Programs can only use the open/save dialog that's built into the OS.

You know before anyone else decides to downrank me, how about you read the thread I've linked to?

Just ignore the ranking / ratings, they are about as useful as the old positive / negative ratings previously.

You could post a load of positive Apple BS and you'd be ranked +30, you could post some thing seemlying negative ( for some people ) towards Apple, but yet, accurate and true and get a negative rating.
 
I'm surprised no one has complained that this is a separate package from the old version.

i.e., the lack of discounted upgrading.
 
Love the bright yellow titles in premiere 10, reminds me of premiere 4.x for the Mac in the mid '90s.
 
Eh, who uses Elements Organizer from Elements anyway?

Download of Elements 10 for Mac is $89.99 on Amazon -- surprised that Apple is beating Amazon's price. :eek:

It's not the full product though for either version. The Amazon versions give you Smart Sound and the organizer. If you don't need those features, save $10, but it's not really cheaper. It's less product. A lot of people use the organizer. iPhoto isn't exactly the joy it used to be. I welcome alternatives to iPhoto, which gets more bogged down with each release.

I'm surprised no one has complained that this is a separate package from the old version.

i.e., the lack of discounted upgrading.

??? Um, they only usually offer an upgrade discount on the full blown Photo Shop program. So no one is going to complain about something Adobe has never done. Years ago, you may have seen a copy at Sam's Club with a $20 mail in rebate if you owned product A, B, or C, but that was about it.

Price should be lower. There are routinely deals for these programs for much cheaper.

Links to support? $80 has always been around the price of any version of Elements except when nearing a new release. Then you sometimes see a discount offer. Hardly the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else think Adobe is going out of it's way to screw us by offering PS Editor 9 in the Mac app store, then updating the boxed to PS Elements 10 just a few weeks later, and now offering Editor 10 with no upgrade path?

The product is a good one, but I've been repeatedly shafted by Adobe with their licensing, product activations and installation restrictions.

This is not a consumer friendly company.
 
The product is a good one, but I've been repeatedly shafted by Adobe with their licensing, product activations and installation restrictions.

As this is on the MAS, the licensing is standard for MAS. Pretty simple.

This is actually the main reason I am considering it as then I can run it on all my Macs instead of just the one I have version 8 running on.

B
 
I don't know much about Mac OS history but do about UNIX (I've used since 1980). UNIX file systems were and still are case sensitive. I can only guess that Apple went with case insensitive volumes for backwards compatibility with earlier Mac OS versions? Of course Microsoft DOS and Windows has always been case insensitive.

I don't know that it matters what century we are in.

So unless you have gone out of your way to create a case sensitive volume on your Mac, I can only guess you are trying to access shared Linux volumes which are case sensitive?

First off, Max OS X Disk Utility allows you to create Case-Sensitive HFS+ volumes. Just try to create a new disk image and you will see this option in the drop-down box.

Most folks on this forum probably know this, so ask them to forgive me here, but there is a difference between "case sensitive" and "case preserving". Technically, case-sensitive volumes are all case-preserving, but not all case-preserving volumes are case-sensitive.

Case-preserving/non-case-sensitive volumes allow you to save a file named "Cat.txt" and it will still appear as "Cat.txt" in the Finder (not as "CAT.TXT"). However, with case-preserving non-case-sensitive volumes, you can retrieve the "Cat.txt" file programmatically using "CAT.txt" or "cat.txt" or "Cat.txt".

With case-preserving non-case-sensitive volumes, you cannot have two different files named "Cat.txt" and "CAT.TXT", respectively, in the same director. Creating the second file will overwrite the first.

Case-sensitive volumes also preserve case, but additionally differentiate "CAT.TXT" from "Cat.txt" from "cat.txt". All three files would be considered to be distinct.

The reason that some apps don't support case-sensitive volumes is because assumptions are made in the code that one could open a file named "Cat.txt" with the name "CAT.TXT" in some places and with the name "cat.txt" in other places. Because the application assumes it can get to the same configuration with different names, it fails on a case-sensitive volume. Other potential issues could be using a lookup table of files by path that forces upper-case on the file names when used as keys in the lookup table.
 
Pretty cool, but I think I'll stick with Pixelmator for less than half the price...
 
Last edited:
I come to a site called MacRumors to hear authoritative news and information about iPhones and other iOS devices along with Android and Window phones, not to hear rumors about Macs and Mac related software. Stop clogging up the front page!

Update: My first down vote! :D

Well I though it was funny even if none else did!
 
My only gripe is lack of upgrade pricing. My criticism is more directed toward Apple than Adobe though, as the App Store does not provide upgrade pricing option for developer.

That said, since previous versions were released to the App Store mere 2-3 months ago, Adobe could've just withheld releasing the old version and launch these new versions on the App Store.
 
I don't know much about Mac OS history but do about UNIX (I've used since 1980). UNIX file systems were and still are case sensitive. I can only guess that Apple went with case insensitive volumes for backwards compatibility with earlier Mac OS versions? Of course Microsoft DOS and Windows has always been case insensitive.

I don't know that it matters what century we are in.

So unless you have gone out of your way to create a case sensitive volume on your Mac, I can only guess you are trying to access shared Linux volumes which are case sensitive?

First off, Max OS X Disk Utility allows you to create Case-Sensitive HFS+ volumes. Just try to create a new disk image and you will see this option in the drop-down box.

Most folks on this forum probably know this, so ask them to forgive me here, but there is a difference between "case sensitive" and "case preserving". Technically, case-sensitive volumes are all case-preserving, but not all case-preserving volumes are case-sensitive.

By default, OS X uses case insensitive volumes. 99+% of all Mac users use case insensitive volumes. Nobody should create case sensitive volumes unless they have a specific reason for doing so.

I don't know what "case preserving" has to do with this since all common OSes in use today are case preserving, even late 20th century. I specifically addressed an earlier post that was concerned about case sensitivity and neither he nor I questioned case preservation.
 
As this is on the MAS, the licensing is standard for MAS. Pretty simple.

This is actually the main reason I am considering it as then I can run it on all my Macs instead of just the one I have version 8 running on.

B

Adobe's licensing is good for two systems for most products, and it certainly covers two systems for the Windows version of Elements.
 
Bluer skies? Seriously? Just stop polluting the air in the real world. Right?

Three points.

First, the "blue skies" filter will likely NOT make "brown" skies blue. It will make super-pale-blue skies more dramatically blue. If you want brown skies blue then make a selection of the sky and change the color hue however you feel the need, just like always.

Second, assuming it is Used As Designed, it allows a photograph to more accurately capture what the human eye sees when we look out. We see blue skies which are a far "richer" blue than what the camera tends to capture, as we see in a far greater dynamic range than digital sensors capture. Even if the sensors capture the blue contrast in the sky, it is overwhelmed by the contrast at ground level and the photo doesn't reliably capture what the person standing there (whose brain does quite well at capturing the various hues of blue in the sky as well as the colors on the ground) sees. This kind of post processing is rather standard, often done using dodge/burn techniques to underexpose the bright sky while keeping the foreground subjects properly exposed.

Third, assuming this is built to the same level as other marquee Photoshop Elements "features", it will sorely disappoint most people wanting to use it in any way which is not the straight-down-the-center/what-the-example-on-the-front-of-the-box-depicts way Adobe crippled it into being able to support. If you want to do what it sounds like you *should* be able to do, spend the much larger $$ on Photoshop itself (or wait a year or two for the same feature to be in Pixelmator / Acorn / etc, or figure out how to do it in three clicks instead of one in any number of image editors).

Personally, the crashiness of Photoshop Elements 6 and then 8 and then 9 (yes, I *am* "that sucker") have turned me off PSE altogether. For a moment I was excited to see that there was a new version out there. Then I saw that they are still charging an arm and a leg for it, and I remembered how awful the experience of the last couple of versions was. I'm trying Pixelmator out for my non-Aperture photo edits now; haven't had it crash and haven't been disappointed in the depth of its features yet.

----------

It's not the full product though for either version. The Amazon versions give you Smart Sound and the organizer. If you don't need those features, save $10, but it's not really cheaper. It's less product. A lot of people use the organizer. iPhoto isn't exactly the joy it used to be. I welcome alternatives to iPhoto, which gets more bogged down with each release.



??? Um, they only usually offer an upgrade discount on the full blown Photo Shop program. So no one is going to complain about something Adobe has never done. Years ago, you may have seen a copy at Sam's Club with a $20 mail in rebate if you owned product A, B, or C, but that was about it.

Actually I bought PSE 6, and "upgraded" with a $20 discount to PSE 8 and then PSE 9. This was a year or two ago, but hardly what "years ago" would imply.

Links to support? $80 has always been around the price of any version of Elements except when nearing a new release. Then you sometimes see a discount offer. Hardly the same thing.

Right after the release, registered owners of the previous versions would get an email touting the new features and offering a $20 discount off the MSRP for the new version if bought directly from Adobe.

I have also seen PSE 9 for $15 under Adobe's price at Costco about a month after release.

Sorry, can't provide links to my email box nor to the recording of me walking through Costco and thinking "well, at least my discounted 'upgrade' was $5 better than a non-upgrader walking into Costco!" Which of course might exist on a security camera archive somewhere, but is unlikely to be annotated with my thoughts as I looked at the box :)
 
I am not going to buy stuff from the Mac App Store if what I buy comes crippled or without features present in other iterations of the same software sold elsewhere for the same price. Case in point: Civilization V or the aforementioned Adobe products. Similarly, if I can't get an upgrade discount on newer versions of software on the Mac App Store by virtue of having bought the previous version on the Mac App Store (though I get the feeling that the Adobe Elements apps never had "upgrade" versions; someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this), I won't buy titles on the Mac App Store for which there are regular whole new versions, because that makes no sense at all.
 
As this is on the MAS, the licensing is standard for MAS. Pretty simple.

Not offering free upgrades? I'm pretty sure Pixelmator just did a free upgrade to version 2.0.

Discounted upgrades: yeah, Apple hasn't given a good way to do that on the Mac App Store yet. But Adobe definitely isn't being forced into charging for the update.

This is actually the main reason I am considering it as then I can run it on all my Macs instead of just the one I have version 8 running on.

B

Yes, able to run on 5 computers (that you own and control, no matter who is running it at the moment) is much better than being able to run it on 2 (I wonder if it still requires only one of them to be running at any time, though... the MAS license is a little different regarding who uses the software than Adobe's license).
 
By default, OS X uses case insensitive volumes. 99+% of all Mac users use case insensitive volumes. Nobody should create case sensitive volumes unless they have a specific reason for doing so.

I don't know what "case preserving" has to do with this since all common OSes in use today are case preserving, even late 20th century. I specifically addressed an earlier post that was concerned about case sensitivity and neither he nor I questioned case preservation.

Your original statement was

So unless you have gone out of your way to create a case sensitive volume on your Mac, I can only guess you are trying to access shared Linux volumes which are case sensitive?

Which made me think that you did not realize that Mac OS X can in fact create case-sensitive volumes regardless of UNIX or Linux. Certainly the default is case insensitive.

The comments regarding case preserving were suppose to be in response to the poster that you originally responded to, but I seemed to forget that quoting one person does not quote the person they quoted.

The poster you responded to (parseckadet) seemed to confuse "Case Sensitive" with "Case Preserving" because he seemed to think that "Case Sensitive" volumes were extremely common in this decade. The impact of Adobe not supporting case-sensitive volumes is minimal.

I was attempting to point out that parseckadet did not seem to understand the difference. Anyway -- sorry for the confusion.
 
Imo...

The poster you responded to (parseckadet) seemed to confuse "Case Sensitive" with "Case Preserving" because he seemed to think that "Case Sensitive" volumes were extremely common in this decade. The impact of Adobe not supporting case-sensitive volumes is minimal.

IMO, case-sensitivity is one of the worst possible user-unfriendly ideas to ever have been brought forward in the history of computing systems.

Let me define the terms as I use them first - many agree with my definitions, many do not.

  • case-insensitive - I create "MyFavouritePorn.Flv". The system creates an entry in the filesystem that's either MYFAVOURITEPORN.FLV or myfavouriteporn.flv. If I do a directory listing, I'll see either MYFAVOURITEPORN.FLV or myfavouriteporn.flv. If I try to open "myfavouriteporn.flv", the system will upcase or locase my filename and look for a match, and give me the file.
  • case-sensitive - I create "MyFavouritePorn.Flv". The system creates an entry in the filesystem that's exactly "MyFavouritePorn.Flv". If I try to open "myfavouriteporn.flv", the system will do an exact check for a match, and return a "file not found" error.
  • case-preserving - I create "MyFavouritePorn.Flv". The system creates an entry in the filesystem that's exactly "MyFavouritePorn.Flv". If I try to open "myfavouriteporn.flv", the system will do a case-blind check for a match, and open "MyFavouritePorn.Flv".

To me, case-sensivity creates an ambiguity which increases the chance of a user error. If you type "T.T" to create a temp file, and later look at "t.t" - you'll get a completely different file, and the results may be unfortunate. (Especially if it's "T.SH" and "t.sh" - running the wrong script can be very serious.)


The impact of Adobe not supporting case-sensitive volumes is minimal.

+1
 
What would be cool

It would be cool if creative suite went in the app store, and along with it, all the third party plug-ins, all in the same pro section or something.

It would encourage me to update and expand and trust all the third party adobe add ons.

I'm sure people will think this is a little old school, but it could work if adobe could bring some of the entrepreneur feeling to their developer base.
 
It would be cool if creative suite went in the app store, and along with it, all the third party plug-ins, all in the same pro section or something.

It would encourage me to update and expand and trust all the third party adobe add ons.

I'm sure people will think this is a little old school, but it could work if adobe could bring some of the entrepreneur feeling to their developer base.

Well for one, if I need an Adobe product, I'll go straight through Adobe for it and skip any Apple filtering of the software.

Second, if all software has to be sandboxed, then how could a plug-in work in the MAS? If software must only interact with itself, then doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a plug-in?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.