Adobe Creative Suite 3 Unsupported on OS X Snow Leopard

[fjpoblam]

Whew!

Having pre-ordered SL as soon as AAPL made it available, my butt puckered this morning when someone said on Twitter this morning that CS3 wouldn't run on SL. I do websites, and I *depend* on CS3.

We have CS3 on my MBP on mi esposa's HP (two separate $licenses$). We're not rich enough to justify that: I'm just stoopid. But I've seen Adobe's TOS phrase, copy it to another computer on the same network and just don't use the two copies "at the same time". Bleah. Mi esposa and I almost always use CS3 at the same time. So, maybe stoopidly, I bought 2 $licenses$. No student discount.

We were thinking of chucking out the $200 for CS4. Now I think mebbe not. Think we'll get used to Aviary, if I can figure out an easy alternative to Bridge, which we use heavily for 9 years of photos.

I'm grateful as heck you folks pointed out the difference between "doesn't work" and "isn't supported". THANKS! Now, I only hope I can find a list of (if any) Leopard software that won't run in SL.

 

[FoxyKaye]

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.

I'm *not* spending the money to upgrade to Snow Leopard, which is why myself and a lot of others are pissed at Adobe.

 

[gatepc]

+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.

I agree with this 100% because I have a "friend" of a friend of a friend who would have just pirated it if it was the in the 130 dollar range...... not that I know this person well or anything and I definitely would NEVER do that...... but of course since its reasonably priced I am just going to buy it! oops I mean he is just going to buy it.....

 

[compuwar]

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.

In my opinion, you've got a pretty skewed view of software development then. When I got paid as an assembly language programmer for an ISV, our product had its own non-procedural programming language, and you can bet any time I added a feature or fixed a bug it was my responsibility to not break the APIs, let alone the language itself. It's very rare that a bug in an OS or presentation layer library's fix can't be made not to irrevocably break things- in fact it's only if the users of the API rely on the broken behavior (seen that too.) Apple is coding the updates, it's up to them how they do it and it's up to them how much they break compatibility- but new features don't need to break old ones- that's a simple and straightforward truth.

 

[MacFly123]

Adobe freaking SUCKS! I am so sick of their BS. I hope they burn. This is so freaking lame. CS3 still has very obvious bugs in Leopard for crying out loud, and now this? SCREW YOU ADOBE!

Apple, PLEASE make a Photoshop killer, I would switch instantly!

 

[gatepc]

In my opinion, you've got a pretty skewed view of software development then. When I got paid as an assembly language programmer for an ISV, our product had its own non-procedural programming language, and you can bet any time I added a feature or fixed a bug it was my responsibility to not break the APIs, let alone the language itself. It's very rare that a bug in an OS or presentation layer library's fix can't be made not to irrevocably break things- in fact it's only if the users of the API rely on the broken behavior (seen that too.) Apple is coding the updates, it's up to them how they do it and it's up to them how much they break compatibility- but new features don't need to break old ones- that's a simple and straightforward truth.

I was under the impression that when heavy changes occur under the hood of the os that those can lead to software incompatibilities and that sometimes there are no fixes or at least easy ones to these problems. You may be right I am not saying you are not, just saying what I thought, which apparently must be incorrect.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's very rare that a bug in an OS or presentation layer library's fix can't be made not to irrevocably break things- in fact it's only if the users of the API rely on the broken behavior (seen that too.).

There are quite a few old Windows APIs where the "broken" behaviour had to be preserved - the new, correct version has a different spelling for the name of the API.

Few of these old APIs are currently documented - only the "correct" API is easy to find.

 

[*LTD*]

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.

The general consensus is that Quark 8 is a huge improvement.

 

[compuwar]

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.

Yet they still compete- RPP beats ACR hands-down in terms of image quality and if you're cheap it won't cost a penny- personally, I've donated twice.

All it takes though is activism to raise people's consciousness. I hate the fact that Microsoft finds it ok to release server software with tens of thousands of known bugs- so I make sure my IT clients are educated on the alternatives- and they generally end up with a few Linux boxes doing critical stuff. I ran Linux for years as a desktop until my photography business needed Photoshop- but one I went into that cave, I knew where it was going to lead, and I went in with my eyes open. If it's critical to me, I keep it updated, that's a cost of doing business with critical software- while I'll happily fund projects like RPP as alternatives as well when I can or should, I'm not under any illusion on how Adobe and their shareholder's interests are best-served.

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.

Start a software company and see what sorts of prices you can produce quality and complex software at- unless it's a one-man shop, you're likely to be quite surprised.

Secondly, one only has to look at GenericCAD's history to see that offering professional-level software dirt cheap doesn't necessarily generate professional sales, and certainly doesn't strengthen one's brand.

 

[compuwar]

Adobe freaking SUCKS! I am so sick of their BS. I hope they burn. This is so freaking lame. CS3 still has very obvious bugs in Leopard for crying out loud, and now this? SCREW YOU ADOBE!

Apple, PLEASE make a Photoshop killer, I would switch instantly!

Have you looked at Bibble Pro or Lightzone, or any of the other alternatives?

 

[compuwar]

There are quite a few old Windows APIs where the "broken" behaviour had to be preserved - the new, correct version has a different spelling for the name of the API.

Few of these old APIs are currently documented - only the "correct" API is easy to find.

That's one of my points- Apple could easily retain old APIs- the cost is that developers have to call the new ones to use them, so you don't get a quick cut-over. Frankly though, if you're forcing your user-base to live with the incompatibilities, then not selling the old version in parallel is outrageous.

 

[robogobo]

in a word, f*ckadobe.

This is why people steal their software.

 

[arkmannj]

I'm *not* spending the money to upgrade to Snow Leopard, which is why myself and a lot of others are pissed at Adobe.

ditto, we spent $1K+ with Adobe, it's them that I expect support from for a decent amount of time. Adobe knows when they make a product that they may need to support it through OS changes etc. I think they should be committed to that. I know this will be comparing Apples/Oranges but look at Blizzard, I mean Starcraft Came out back in the late 90's (for around $50.00 if I remember right) and they're still releasing support patches, you can run it in Mac OS X, and everything. on the other hand you have Adobe.

 

[sighlent]

Well since Rosetta can be optionally installed in Snow Leopard, I don't blame Adobe for not wanting to deal with that headache it would cause for CS3 and earlier versions of CS.

 

[8CoreWhore]

Wow!

What if it does work fine? Why put out a FAQ scaring everyone needlessly? This tells me they DID test it and it does not function properly. Why force CS3 users to upgrade if they don't need to? Adobre can be some real ******s.

http://www.gimp.org/

FREE open-source imaging software that may address all your needs!

 

[skellener]

Apple, PLEASE make a Photoshop killer, I would switch instantly!

Not by Apple, but very close....

Pixelmator
http://www.pixelmator.com

And only $59. Will run beautifully on Snow Leopard!

 

[Omegamanstyle]

Adobe Principal Product Manager for Photoshop John Nack

... Nack points out that limited resources dictate that the company focus on current and future priorities, including customer support and feature development, rather than spending time assessing and modifying software released nearly two and a half years ago to ensure continued compatibility.

Um, isn't making sure the $1500 software suite that is less than 3 years old still functions intrinsically part of Customer Service?

That's like a restaurant saying that they don't want to hear your complaints about breakfast because they want to focus on keeping their customers happy for dinner.

 

[emulator]

Apple, PLEASE make a Photoshop killer, I would switch instantly!

..and would continue to whine until v4 at least, when it would worth more than a dollar.

Not by Apple, but very close....

Pixelmator

tried it. could not even open 1 out of the 5 psd I tried.

 

[arkmannj]

Um, isn't making sure the $1500 software suite that is less than 3 years old still functions intrinsically part of Customer Service?

That's like a restaurant saying that they don't want to hear your complaints about breakfast because they want to focus on keeping their customers happy for dinner.

I like your analogy. but I need some lunch

 

[MM123]

Adobe Principal Product Manager for Photoshop John Nack reports that the company has put together a Snow Leopard FAQ (PDF) notifying customers that while its Creative Suite 4 package is compatible with Apple's forthcoming Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Creative Suite 3 and other earlier versions have not been tested for compatibility and will not be updated if found to be incompatible.In response to a reader's comment expressing surprise that Creative Suite 3 had not even been tested, Nack responds that while CS3 almost certainly was tested by Adobe, the company has likely taken a conservative route in its guidance in case users do experience issues with CS3 under Snow Leopard.Upon further questioning of Adobe's lack of support for Creative Suite 3 on Snow Leopard, Nack points out that limited resources dictate that the company focus on current and future priorities, including customer support and feature development, rather than spending time assessing and modifying software released nearly two and a half years ago to ensure continued compatibility.

Article Link: Adobe Creative Suite 3 Unsupported on OS X Snow Leopard

WTF is this again? Oh yeah, bloody bastards from adobe ...

 

[blackhand1001]

WHAT?! The new UI is a frickin' disaster, with that outrageously silly nonstandard menubar, horrible tabs functionality, and expose breakage. Adobe insists on implementing their own crappy window implementations which breaks everything. Head on over to Adobe UI Gripes for some laughs, or tears, depending on how you look at it.

Hmm, seems lke they're following apples example for their windows programs. Apples windows appications other than safari 4 have always not used native windows implementations of gdi elements or support aero correctly. Apple is worse about this than adobe.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Um, isn't making sure the $1500 software suite that is less than 3 years old still functions intrinsically part of Customer Service?

That's like a restaurant saying that they don't want to hear your complaints about breakfast because they want to focus on keeping their customers happy for dinner.

You obviously haven't read compuwar's illuminating "that's the cost of doing business" rationale for it, then.

 

[manu chao]

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

You mean Adobe has officially declared that they will CS3 on Windows 7?

 

[FoxyKaye]

You mean Adobe has officially declared that they will CS3 on Windows 7?

I haven't seen anything to this regard - does anybody know/remember if they supported CS2 on Vista?

 

[compuwar]

You obviously haven't read compuwar's illuminating "that's the cost of doing business" rationale for it, then.

Hey, I've been happily running CS4 on Snow Leopard for months now, so it's not me that has the problem. I paid the cost- I'm doing business


But if you're that upset, call Adobe up on the phone and get everyone else to do the same- because bellyaching here isn't going to change their minds one bit, but if a few thousand people call up it might.