Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Creative Suite 3 Unsupported on OS X Snow Leopard
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've flicked through this thread looking for the answer to this question, but I can't seem to find it...
At the moment I use CS2 in Leopard, I'm happy with it and it works fine...
"I intend to upgrade to SL at some point soon, can somebody just tell me if CS2 works with SL, please?"
Thanks in advance....
At the moment I use CS2 in Leopard, I'm happy with it and it works fine...
"I intend to upgrade to SL at some point soon, can somebody just tell me if CS2 works with SL, please?"
Thanks in advance....
What do you mean with "better performance"?
-Faster performance over CS3? Still to date,have not seen a single testpack that would support that it is. Well,maybe 1-2% but nothing to write home about.
CS3 vs CS4 under leo = same
CS3 vs CS4 under sl = same
CS4 vs CS4 sl vs. leo = same
-Officially supported performance by adobe = better support? well,this one I could understand. as adobe wont answer any questions of cs3+sl, it might matter a bit for some people.
completely different thing is that if adobe can help you anyway even if you call them having a "fully supported system".
The few times I have had to call them the service has been extremely arrogant and poor. 2 times with licensing issue and few times with bugs.
to the licensing issues i got help only after I threatened to have the consumer protection offices involved.
to the buggy questions I got the "we are aware of the bugs and are working on them" answer and nothing else.no work arounds. well...
-something else?
When I select multiple files and drag to CS3 photoshop icon - only one opens - major bummer.
This bug has been in cs3 for ages (under tiger/leo). for me I can get no pics to open. only restart or two helps.
Uhh? Bad. Is the cs3 a upgrade version from cs2 or standalone?Only a PS or a bigger pack?
snow leopard and photoshop cs3 do not work well together.
Trying to navigate around menus and tool bars creates all sorts of glitches and it a real productivity problem.
I have no intention of buying cs4 since it is old now and it never even offered full use of available ram in a system.
I was waiting to see if cs5 could exploit ram and 64 bit systems but for now snow leopard and cs3 combo is a dog and a pain to use.
Trying to navigate around menus and tool bars creates all sorts of glitches and it a real productivity problem.
I have no intention of buying cs4 since it is old now and it never even offered full use of available ram in a system.
I was waiting to see if cs5 could exploit ram and 64 bit systems but for now snow leopard and cs3 combo is a dog and a pain to use.
I said 64-bit CS4, which obviously meant on Windows.
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/affordablehd/newsletter/cs4_64bit_1222/index.html
I said 64-bit CS4, which obviously meant on Windows.
![122208affordablehdTable2-600.jpg]()
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/affordablehd/newsletter/cs4_64bit_1222/index.html
Ah! Obviously! How stupid of me!
So you suggest a macuser to change to windows to (maybe) get some performance benefits?
Maybe in some of the CS´s programs?
Maybe like when people were doing stuff in after effects,like here ? :
Help me out,here dude!
Adobe took this long to consider Cocoa?
Apple sort of shafted them by abandoning the 64 bit rewrite of Carbon.
From John Nack's blog:
Try this out and see if it works. I had a similar issue with files all over my system: http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cs3clean.html
Thanks. But a little too late, I already wiped the HD clean and installed fresh SL and CS3 -- now it works. Apparently CS3 does not like OS upgrades
This whole mess just sounds so flaky. So much for the "it just works" moto. Sounds like the annoyance and grief you'd get from using Windows.
It's not the same as Windows....
With Windows at least you'd be saving a lot of money!
With Windows at least you'd be saving a lot of money!
Well yes, apart from when you remember why carbon was made in the first place.
You know, for helping ease over from Classic application development. Its been how long now... nearly a decade? Maybe if it was under 5 years but Adobe has had 9 freaken years.
Adobe is the kind of company that needs to be pushed for them to do anything new. Hence the lackluster CS upgrades.
With Windows at least you'd be saving a lot of money!
If only it was that simple, otherwise I'd be learning C# not Objective-C.
Adobe's mess, Adobe's licensing system, seems like they're going the MS way (cracked versions work better because licensing is disabled)...
"Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCOJune 6, 2005"
So while macintoshtoffy got his details off the hand writing was on the walls in June 2005. From Jan 2006 on every new Mac was an Intel machine though the Power Macintosh G5 (Oct 2005) dual core was still shipping as late as August 2006 though by that time likely with heavy discounts.
I've no grief with my windows :[
Well, in Windows 7 the ability to have live output with screen capture programs doesn't work... but that's about it.
Also Creative is pretty stupid with their product line ("only our newest cards have stereo mix recording enabled blah blah even though it worked perfectly fine in xp..."), but eh. I don't use Creative.
In all fairness to Apple as well as they made Classic work it was a band aid over a gaping wound.
Back when Apple was still trying to make Copland work our Mac club (Las Cruces Apple Users Group) was visited by a Apple Rep who explained that the then current OS was a wild patchwork quilt of 68000 assembly, Pascal, and C+ code with a many key parts "black box' ie no one knew why it was there anymore but when they removed it the system did a major crash and they couldn't find what was making calls to that piece of code.
So just getting Classic to run under OSX was enough of a project. Sheep Shaver gives an indication of how just how hard trying to get 8.1 or earlier to run on Intel is--there is just enough bizarreness going on that even things written by Apple (like Quicktime) either freeze the emulated system or bomb.
I miss not being able to play some of my Classic games but there are DOS games that will not run on any Windows system past 95 and many 3.1 games that did not like Vista at all.
FYI, note that Vista x64 cannot run 16-bit code, so Win 3.1 and DOS are definitely not working on Vista x64.
Vista x86 is able to run 16-bit code, so at least there's a possibility on x86.
I am able to run Office 2004 on SL (I installed Rosetta) so if something that old runs on it (and it seems to run faster to boot) you should have not problems with a more recent version of Office. I can't speak to the other software but unless it is calling to some really weird APIs it should run.
Apparently CS3 does not like OS upgrades
Not sure I could say that's the case.
I upgraded to SL (after doing stuff like a TM backup, naturally) and CS3 sailed through without any problems. I ran every app in CS3 and did some quick work - didn't see any issues.So I'm not sure why your CS3 installation on SL didn't work post-OS upgrade. Hmm. Got me there.
Vista x64 will even barf on 32-bit kernel drivers and 64-bit
unsigned drivers If Vista X86 was anything like XP the steps to get some of that old software to run reminds me of either very old or somewhat badly written Mac programs.
The original Cap'n Magneto certainly had "Run in 640 × 480 screen resolution" issues but most programmers figured out that detecting and changing to the proper color mode was a little brighter than relying on a "Run in 256 colors" mode.
It makes sense if you want to install somewhere that you don't want people to bypass (like an virus scanner) but to have a Privilege level setting to allow a program just to run makes me wonder just what the blazes the programmer was doing.
Vista x64 will even barf on 32-bit kernel drivers and 64-bit
Yes, like Apple OS 10.6, Windows requires x64 drivers for the x64 kernel - so Microsoft and Apple are on the same page here. If you choose to run the x64 kernel, you need x64 drivers for eveything.
(Microsoft also requires that the box contains x64 drivers in order to get the "works on Vista" sticker on the box - so not much of an issue with new hardware.)
I'm happy that Vista x64 requires signed drivers - better security is a good thing (and, of course, I can turn it off if I really want to run without blade guards). (I've only turned it off in virtual machines - a great way of sandboxing stuff that you don't want to have access to your real machine.)