Adobe Creative Suite 3 Unsupported on OS X Snow Leopard

[001]

This sort of thing won't happen with Windows 7. Sometimes Mac sucks.

MS is more concerned with changing product names all the damn time than it is with advancing the start-of-the-art.

Product X sucks. Quick change the name and add some flare. That's sure to keep market-share up.

 

[gatepc]

And in latest news the CS4 torrent spikes in downloads..... I joke I joke lol

 

[compuguy1088]

CS4 is a $199 update from CS- I'd check and see if Adobe is even going to have a CS->CS5 upgrade path before I hesitated much longer...

That is the other reason I'm wanting to upgrade, though I currently own a windows license. I'm thing about having it transfered to the mac.

 

[FoxyKaye]

You know the biggest difference though? Adobe doesn't give me a small business pricing model, but they do give non-profits one.

http://www.adobe.com/nonprofit/

If you fit within their very narrow "giving priorities," which many nonprofits don't.

Color me impressed by your "money is everywhere" approach to doing business - I'm really glad you have enough to make ends meet and compete in your sector.

 

[SwiftLives]

Except for the fact that Adobe (and Microsoft, for that matter) know damn well ahead of most independent Apple software developers where Apple's software roadmap is going. The fact that Adobe (and Microsoft with Office 2008 and VBAs) opts to not support Snow Leopard is purely a profit-motivated business decision. It's not a decision about "limited resources" as these companies claim: "limited resources" is simply sugar-coating "we want you to upgrade." And frankly, this behavior is a good example of the monopolistic reign these companies have over entire portions of the software market and the de facto standards they impose over any number of industries.

Actually, I suspect "limited resources" means they laid off a significant chunk of their workforce. I agree they need to support at least one previous version back. And I agree their decision is at least in part motivated by profit. But with the economy being the way it is, I tend to buy the party line about "limited resources" a bit more than I normally world. At this point, it is what it is.

I'll say it again. I really wish Quark were a viable competitor to Adobe Creative Suite. (I still can't believe I'm secretly hoping for Quark to make a big comeback. I've bashed them pretty hard over the years.)

 

[compuwar]

Except for the fact that Adobe (and Microsoft, for that matter) know damn well ahead of most independent Apple software developers where Apple's software roadmap is going. The fact that Adobe (and Microsoft with Office 2008 and VBAs) opts to not support Snow Leopard is purely a profit-motivated business decision. It's not a decision about "limited resources" as these companies claim: "limited resources" is simply sugar-coating "we want you to upgrade." And frankly, this behavior is a good example of the monopolistic reign these companies have over entire portions of the software market and the de facto standards they impose over any number of industries.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I've actually worked as a software developer for an ISV, and it's always about resources. You only have a given number of developers at any one time, and supporting multiple versions takes more work, more space and often going back to fix old code takes your best people- who really want to work on the new stuff, and who make you your best money when they do and who'll leave if they're stuck fixing old crap.

Public companies are in the business of getting people to upgrade- if that's a surprise to you, then I'd be surprised. If you choose to give them your money instead of investing in say Open Source software, then you reap what you sow.

You can also argue that Apple's had Adobe's software for years, and could have ensured compatibility- they're coding new stuff anyway, and you can always make a new API instead of breaking an old one.

 

[CrackedButter]

Except that Apple's hardware updates aren't something in my (or FoxyKaye's) control.

This Leopard/Snow Leopard scenario may be hypothetical for the time being, but my driver compatibility issues two years ago were very, very real.

Maybe if I repeat it one more time, it might sink in.

If people can still run an original 1984 Macintosh even today, I'm sure you can still find a replacement machine for whatever computer you're running now when it fails.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Actually, I suspect "limited resources" means they laid off a significant chunk of their workforce. I agree they need to support at least one previous version back. And I agree their decision is at least in part motivated by profit. But with the economy being the way it is, I tend to buy the party line about "limited resources" a bit more than I normally world. At this point, it is what it is.

I'll say it again. I really wish Quark were a viable competitor to Adobe Creative Suite. (I still can't believe I'm secretly hoping for Quark to make a big comeback. I've bashed them pretty hard over the years.)

Thank you for being a realist. It is what it is, and it sucks hard. I can't believe I'm hoping for the same thing regarding Quark, but it is going to take a lot of time to get back to them being the new de facto standard, and the last time they held this title we got QuarkExpress 5.

 

[seedster2]

All who are complaining after running out and buying the latest Mac OS and only to find out all software vendors not be providing legacy supported are really SOL.

While it is a tough pill to swallow, it comes with the territory with macs. If you wanted certain assurances, got to migrate to MS. Only alternative you have, if you refuse to update Adobe CS3, is to downgrade your OS when you receive your new mac.

You will have to make a tough choice regarding productivity or having the latest from Apple. Leopard will continue to run just fine after Friday. I promise

 

[SwiftLives]

Thank you for being a realist. It is what it is, and it sucks hard. I can't believe I'm hoping for the same thing regarding Quark, but it is going to take a lot of time to get back to them being the new de facto standard, and the last time they held this title we got QuarkExpress 5.

I have heard anecdotally that Quark has massively improved with version 8 (or whatever they're on). Considering 4.1 was the last version I used, I can't really confirm that. Any Quark users out there? If true, it shows that being the underdog can be the fire needed to ignite under a company's posterior.

I wish Quark had ended up with Freehand and GoLive. And kept/developed their photo editing software a bit more.

But frankly, when Adobe bought Macromedia, I kind of predicted they would become the next Quark (er...old evil Quark). It's amazing how a lack of competition can do that to a company.

 

[compuwar]

If you fit within their very narrow "giving priorities," which many nonprofits don't.

If your business model doesn't account for the cost of doing business, it's a poor model for-profit or not[1]. I don't find their definition all that narrow though- I think it's quite reasonable and much wider than I would have expected.

[1.] Bailouts from the USG for stupidity in business aside.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Sorry, but you're wrong. I've actually worked as a software developer for an ISV, and it's always about resources. You only have a given number of developers at any one time, and supporting multiple versions takes more work, more space and often going back to fix old code takes your best people- who really want to work on the new stuff, and who make you your best money when they do and who'll leave if they're stuck fixing old crap.

Public companies are in the business of getting people to upgrade- if that's a surprise to you, then I'd be surprised. If you choose to give them your money instead of investing in say Open Source software, then you reap what you sow.

You can also argue that Apple's had Adobe's software for years, and could have ensured compatibility- they're coding new stuff anyway, and you can always make a new API instead of breaking an old one.

And an ISV is not the same as either Microsoft or Adobe who are large monopolistic sector manipulators. And as you're likely aware, monopolistic companies like Adobe and Microsoft have very little desire to see Open Source become a viable competitor or industry standard, and go out of their way to ensure proprietary file types are de facto standards instead of Open standards.

And yes - of course some of the fault is Apple's, especially since I simply can't take new hardware and run older version of OS X on it, or for that matter, could itself be a better partner to both large monopolistic companies such as Adobe and Microsoft and smaller independent software vendors.

I'll get right on re-writing those APIs.

 

[pprior]

If for some reason Photoshop CS3 stops working in SL, I definetely WILL NOT upgrade to CS4 because of their non-64bit decision. If that happens, I'm buying Aperture and wait for the CS5 (and if it's not a worthy upgrade either, I'm going to skip that too).

This is exactly my situation. Mac users got shafted with cs4, I can't believe people are "upgrading" and now this...

I won't steal their software, but they won't get any more money from my wallet, that's for sure.

 

[arkmannj]

One more lame example of manufacturers trying to force consumers to buy, buy, buy. Software that works now should keep working. Just because I buy a new desk doesn't mean I should have to get a new ruler and pen. Apple should make sure their new OS doesn't break old software, all the way back to Classic and beyond. Apple's abandonment of Classic is a tragedy. There is a tremendous amount of software, including educational software, that was available for that that is no longer made and there are no replacements. Adobe's just being greedy and lazy.

I do Somewhat agree, I wish we could have a decent classic emulator/environment. (there's that sheep shaver, but it's a bit flakey and only supports up to Mac OS 9.0 or something) (all I have are OS7 and 9.2 discs)
heck, if Parallels, or VMWare wanted to make an add-on product I'd pay for it.

I miss Myst, Riven, etc...

 

[compuwar]

And kept/developed their photo editing software a bit more.

There are enough photo editing packages on the market now- free and pay that finding one that works shouldn't be a big chore.

 

[FoxyKaye]

If your business model doesn't account for the cost of doing business, it's a poor model for-profit or not. I don't find their definition all that narrow though- I think it's quite reasonable and much wider than I would have expected.

Uh huh. So when Ford Foundation suddenly decides to withhold payment on the second half of a $500,000 grant that you've already entered under a contract for because Ford decides it wants to "re-evaluate the distribution of its investment portfolio before continuing to issue grants" somehow this is supposed to be a part of the nonprofit sector's business model? Like every nonprofit that has grant contracts and has incorporated that money into its yearly business plan is suddenly able to say to its creditors, "oh, I'm sorry, I can't pay you right now because that funding stream we've already been contracted for is going to be delayed. But if it's any consolation, we won't be upgrading our computers either."

I'm sorry, but Reaganomics died a furious and fast death with the current economic collapse.

 

[compuwar]

And an ISV is not the same as either Microsoft or Adobe who are large monopolistic sector manipulators.

One doesn't have to be large to have a monopoly.

And as you're likely aware, monopolistic companies like Adobe and Microsoft have very little desire to see Open Source become a viable competitor or industry standard, and go out of their way to ensure proprietary file types are de facto standards instead of Open standards.

But by going along with it, we're all party to it. Office for instance supports RTF, but how many people send RTF documents? As far as Adobe goes, pretty-much everything opens their files now, so you're not as locked in as you could be.

And yes - of course some of the fault is Apple's, especially since I simply can't take new hardware and run older version of OS X on it, or for that matter, could itself be a better partner to both large monopolistic companies such as Adobe and Microsoft and smaller independent software vendors.

I'll get right on re-writing those APIs.

Apple holds a monopoly too. I'd say that more than "some" of the fault is Apples- they after all control how the OS works and how they break compatibility with already-running applications.

 

[FoxyKaye]

I do Somewhat agree, I wish we could have a decent classic emulator/environment. (there's that sheep shaver, but it's a bit flakey and only supports up to Mac OS 9.0 or something) (all I have are OS7 and 9.2 discs)
heck, if Parallels, or VMWare wanted to make an add-on product I'd pay for it.

I miss Myst, Riven, etc...

Sheep Shaver has always been more about running fun stuff for me than doing serious emulation.

If it's any consolation, VMWare is now allowing for OS X 10.5 and 10.6 *Server* installs in emulation (they claim Apple licensing won't allow for the everyday "workstation" versions of Leopard/SL to run under VMWare, but I believe there's a hack online for this somewhere). I haven't played with this enough to gauge whether or not running an install of OS X 10.5 Server under VMWare will work with something like CS3, or what the implications for running everyday legacy software under it will be that doesn't run in 10.6, but it seems intriguing enough to try.

 

[SiPat]

I can confirm that Adobe CS3 does work on 10A432

 

[gatepc]

Apple holds a monopoly too. I'd say that more than "some" of the fault is Apples- they after all control how the OS works and how they break compatibility with already-running applications.

I don't think its any of apples fault sometimes these incompatibility problems are unfortunately unfixable due to updates in the OS. It is NOT Apple's responsibility to make sure that 3rd party's update there software to account for these incompatibility problems.

 

[seedster2]

Apple holds a monopoly too. I'd say that more than "some" of the fault is Apples- they after all control how the OS works and how they break compatibility with already-running applications.

Shhhh! Don't ever blame Apple

Everyone here is jumping the shark to blame Adobe. It's the cool thing to do on this board. Defend every decision Apple makes to the death. Once a developer says no, turn on the developer. Rinse and Repeat.

 

[compuwar]

Uh huh. So when Ford Foundation suddenly decides to withhold payment on the second half of a $500,000 grant that you've already entered under a contract for because Ford decides it wants to "re-evaluate the distribution of its investment portfolio before continuing to issue grants" somehow this is supposed to be a part of the nonprofit sector's business model? Like every nonprofit that has grant contracts and has incorporated that money into its yearly business plan is suddenly able to say to its creditors, "oh, I'm sorry, I can't pay you right now because that funding stream we've already been contracted for is going to be delayed. But if it's any consolation, we won't be upgrading our computers either."

I'm sorry, but Reaganomics died a furious and fast death with the current economic collapse.

CS4 has been out for what, ten months? That you chose not to upgrade then was a choice- you played the odds by trying to defer the expense and you lost- that happens. If a few hundred dollars makes that much of a difference, why would you spend the money to upgrade to Snow Leopard?

You have to live with your allocation of resources just like Adobe does theirs. All of you who didn't upgrade to CS4 before now have affected Adobe's income- and that affects their resources- to complain now that they won't continue to pour money into your happiness- well it seems that in this economy they're in the same spot- but once again Apple's causing the incompatibility here- and they spent money to do it.

 

[FoxyKaye]

One doesn't have to be large to have a monopoly.

But by going along with it, we're all party to it. Office for instance supports RTF, but how many people send RTF documents? As far as Adobe goes, pretty-much everything opens their files now, so you're not as locked in as you could be.

Apple holds a monopoly too. I'd say that more than "some" of the fault is Apples- they after all control how the OS works and how they break compatibility with already-running applications.

How many everyday users really know enough to send RTF files? That's as silly as Microsoft saying we can easily convert all of our VBA to AppleScript. And a lot of things will open Adobe files, but not with complete compatibility - which can destroy work fairly easily. Some of the fault is Apple's however, Apple has given preferential access to its software roadmap to the largest industry players for years (e.g. Adobe and Microsoft), so independent software developers are not competing on a level playing field.

 

[NightwalkerUK]

+1 just look at the price of SL, I can guarantee many more people will be actually buying this rather then the usual torrent download or 'borrowing' from friend trick simply because of the great price. If more software companies charged a more reasonable price for their products they'd probably sell a whole lot more copies rather than forcing less well of people to pirate their goods.

The CS range of software is particularly over priced buts its because of the hold they have over the market. Drop the price and it will fly out of the door.

They want to increase sales, they ought to think about doing what most of the rest of the businesses in America are doing..... lower their damn incredibly ridiculous prices!

Mark

 

[HLdan]

I think Apple should just tell Adobe to go "F" off and let Adobe drop support for the Mac platform. It's ridiculous how Adobe keeps playing these games with the Mac customers, we are the ones that get hurt in the end. Adobe keeps on making new versions of their software for Windows while Mac users are still enjoying 2 versions back of their overpriced crap.

There are plenty of options from 3rd parties. I bought CS2 and will never buy or use another Adobe product ever.