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 Announced
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tell me about it...man, I can't believe how quickly people are forgetting how desperate they were when Apple force the majority to jump on OS X...lack of everything...not mentioning the speed..I own epson 1200 and after 2 years driver compatibility for os X suddenly shows up with tones of problems....the epson drivers are really weak ......the epson printer drivers in Mac OS X for a long time were unreliable, they often lost communication with the printer during a print job or they just printed half a page...but in os 9 I didn't encountered any problems...
man, i feel so alone here...
"Dude", I don't need full pre-press functionality (and never said I did!), I just need to be able to create multiple pages within one document. I don't want to turn Illustrator into InDesign; I just want to be able to create multiple versions of the same illustration within the same document in an organized, easy-to-print manner. Why would anybody not consider MPD's the "right" tool for the job?
I know what Adobe's point of view is, and I also know that lots of features overlap between the programs. Again, we're on Version 11. No more excuses.
Airmac: Thanks for the tip...I'm going to give HotDoor a try. Have you used it?
As stated before, this is pretty ignorant, not taking many users' personal constraints and requirements into account.
For example, a student or teacher might be able pay the $ 100 (or whatever it is) reduced education upgrade price, while not being able to fork out $ 1300 for the kind of new computer that would meet their needs.
Or... a school's department might get the upgrade for free through the school's site license, but might not be able to buy new computers for the department.
Plus, as stated by several users, there are many other reasons why people choose - or are necessitated to - postpone their switch to OSX. These users are now left out in the cold.
I wouldn't be complaining if this *was* the kind of outdated legacy OS nacl99 makes it sound to be, something ridiculous and exotic that hasn't been widely used for 6 years or something. But OS 9 was developed until 2 years ago, and there's tens of thousands of users who still use it everyday.
On the Windows side, they support Windows 2000, and I think folks would be pretty upset if they didn't. So if a few of us for whom OS 9 is part of their workday are disappointed about the lack of OS 9 support, I don't think we should be flamed for that.
good points, true777
the windows/PC world still supports 98SE most of the time, too
i think os 9 still has at least another good year in it
the windows/PC world still supports 98SE most of the time, too
i think os 9 still has at least another good year in it
Jeesh...
B.F.D. So you work for a non profit and they can't afford a new machine. That doesn't mean Adobe (or Apple for that matter) should continue to write software for your outdated hardware and software. What you have works for you so use it. What you have will not work with the latest and greatest software. So either adapt or become increasingly irrelevent. Of course, if the software and hardware you have already works fine, what are you complaining about?
Callous enough for you?
B.F.D. So you work for a non profit and they can't afford a new machine. That doesn't mean Adobe (or Apple for that matter) should continue to write software for your outdated hardware and software. What you have works for you so use it. What you have will not work with the latest and greatest software. So either adapt or become increasingly irrelevent. Of course, if the software and hardware you have already works fine, what are you complaining about?
Callous enough for you?
Yes you should
OS 9 is 19 year old operating system. It has been updated along the way, but it's basic foundation is ancient. The fact that Apple was able to stretch it out until 2 years ago is irrelevent.
Windows 2000 is still a relatively new OS. It is built on WindowsNT, which was released in 1996. The reason Win2000 is still supported is because WindowsXP and 2000 are essentially the same beast. The other reason is because Windows 2000 has a huge installed base. Not supporting it would be commercial suicide.
You know, personally, it makes no difference to me what version of the Mac OS you use. But insisting that Adobe continue to support OS 9 is a lost cause. Why bother whining and moaning over a lost cause?
OS 9 is 19 year old operating system. It has been updated along the way, but it's basic foundation is ancient. The fact that Apple was able to stretch it out until 2 years ago is irrelevent.
Windows 2000 is still a relatively new OS. It is built on WindowsNT, which was released in 1996. The reason Win2000 is still supported is because WindowsXP and 2000 are essentially the same beast. The other reason is because Windows 2000 has a huge installed base. Not supporting it would be commercial suicide.
You know, personally, it makes no difference to me what version of the Mac OS you use. But insisting that Adobe continue to support OS 9 is a lost cause. Why bother whining and moaning over a lost cause?
Re: Yes you should
19 year old operating system...so what does that tells you?! Actually OS 9.2.2 is a rock solid system and just get over the fact that some of us "feel" no need at all for tons of fancy features in os X. I "see" more in os 9-period. And for the speed in jaguar only the dual G5 would satisfy me, if I'll find one under the christmas tree...well I'm a switcher.!!!...or maybe i'm just afraid of wild cats...
So why they even bother for supporting the Classic environment in panther ?!
i guees i'm still whining....
19 year old operating system...so what does that tells you?! Actually OS 9.2.2 is a rock solid system and just get over the fact that some of us "feel" no need at all for tons of fancy features in os X. I "see" more in os 9-period. And for the speed in jaguar only the dual G5 would satisfy me, if I'll find one under the christmas tree...well I'm a switcher.!!!...or maybe i'm just afraid of wild cats...
So why they even bother for supporting the Classic environment in panther ?!
i guees i'm still whining....
Thanks. I just downloaded the demo and loaded it into Ill 10 on OSX. It's great! The one thing that would be nice is if the the Layers palette operated separately for each individual page, but this is a minor concern. I will buy this plug-in. Thanks for the recommendation.
Microsoft supports Windows 2000 because Windows 2000 is only one major release back. That would be like Apple supporting Mac OS X 10.0.
Apple has a greater rate of OS innovation and release. In all terms other than the actual age in years, Mac OS 9 IS an outdated legacy OS.
If OS 9 works for you, great. If System 6 works for you, great. But that's just you, and part of using an outdated OS is not having the same support that the rest of us do. I've used Mac OS X since the Public Beta, and it's been my everyday boot OS since 10.0. On an iMac 233. And I still have Mac OS X running on my iMac 400. An iMac 333 can run Mac OS X, and it can run it fast enough now that what you lose in raw speed you make up for in multitasking and stability.
Re: No OS 9 support!
if you're using this software and hardware professionally you really should change your attitude.
Originally posted by true777
I, for one, actually also like LiveMotion quite a bit, mostly for its simplicity and the fact that it's not a convoluted, overblown colossus when I just need something quick, lean, and straightforward.
I was shocked to see that OS 9 is not supported anymore
Yes, I know that now I have "loser" stamped all over me for my love of OS 9,
but I'll probably be the last person on earth to switch - just don't like OSX and try to avoid it. I love the minimalist nature of the classic OS. Ah, I wish OSX had an optional appearance scheme that made it look much like OS 9... but that's another thread...
In any case, no OS 9 support means I'll stick with PS 7 for now
if you're using this software and hardware professionally you really should change your attitude.
Well i will use your own words..."If OS X works for you, great. But that's just you..." What's your point besides to annoy us os 9 users. Maybe some day i'll touch the feeling of pure clarity of panther or whatever version, but just don't get into multitasking advantage. There is no need fot it if you're using one particular program 6 hours a day...I guess you were one of minority who were thrilled with 10.0.4.
This is getting really boring...
My point was that, by an objective standard, there isn't much reason to support Mac OS 9, and if you use it, which is up to you, then recognize that you're using an outdated OS, so just deal with the consequences of that.
I will say, however, that Mac OS X is no problem on an iMac 333, and if you've never used OS X beyond the first five minutes, don't judge it by that.
Re: Re: No OS 9 support!
Now that is debetable. So it makes you a professional if you sound professionally? I will say this in plain english..."We tried it and reject it!", so what part of this sentence you didn't understand? By now it is a common knowledge that my english sucks so you won't have to dig below your personal level...
Now that is debetable. So it makes you a professional if you sound professionally? I will say this in plain english..."We tried it and reject it!", so what part of this sentence you didn't understand? By now it is a common knowledge that my english sucks so you won't have to dig below your personal level...
hehe, when did I say i spend just 5 minutes on OS X?! i own mdd duali that boots in both systems. Look, i use it a lot for mail stuff (now this is funny) because for the first time jaguar can produce all slovenian characters so i can exchange data with my pc customers. This is really important for us and jaguar has a good support for ss and unicode fonts and that is also a big step forward. I'm also using Corel 11 (which is slow as.......slow) and bunch of other, well I admit, helpful utility softwares. I'm also not so thrilled with the speed of Indesign, but again the character issue is better supported. I'm not a newbie in jaguar as you pointed and as a loyal mac customer since 1991 I'm entitled to judge anything apple delivers...
now it's 3 a.m. here so I'm going to bed...
Re: Faster?
Keep wishing.
I'm using the last "beta" build for Photoshop CS and Panther and I don't really notice all that much of a change in speed, if any.
You'd think that they would have a better antialiasing algorithm for zooming by now, too.
And i thought that the filter layers feature would have been a really good feature for Photoshop, though I never had the chance to use it in the betas.
Keep wishing.
I'm using the last "beta" build for Photoshop CS and Panther and I don't really notice all that much of a change in speed, if any.
You'd think that they would have a better antialiasing algorithm for zooming by now, too.
And i thought that the filter layers feature would have been a really good feature for Photoshop, though I never had the chance to use it in the betas.
Re: No OS 9 support!
I join nacl99 in being annoyed MS DOS is not supported anymore
Really, a comparison to MS DOS is not far fetched. When I switched a few months ago I read up on OSX and 9. Frankly, I was shocked at the state of 9's memory management and multitasking. Even Win98 did a better job, sort of implementing protected memory and such. In an intro of OSX to switching 9'ers, I read the use of protected memory was introduced as new. This was introduced to the Intel line of processors with the 386. A long, long time ago: 1985. PPC processors had it from the start. IBM did quite a reasonable implementation back in OS/2.
Windows 1 up to ME are descendants of the MS DOS based line. NT, Win2k and XP were new (you probably know what NT stands for). The DOS legacy is supposed to have died out: XP home and Pro are both from NT descent.
With regard to OS age, 9 is ancient. An OS should take care of operating your system. OSX/Darwin does that very well, according to present day standards. To the same standards, 9 doesn't cut it.
System 9 lived a full and happy life. Not surprisingly, it outlived it's DOS based counterparts, as its constitution generally was better and it didn't catch a virus quite as often. Now let it rest in peace and fondly remembered through it's sibling, Classic Environment.
M.
Originally posted by true777
I, for one, actually also like LiveMotion quite a bit, mostly for its simplicity and the fact that it's not a convoluted, overblown colossus when I just need something quick, lean, and straightforward.
I was shocked to see that OS 9 is not supported anymore
Yes, I know that now I have "loser" stamped all over me for my love of OS 9,
but I'll probably be the last person on earth to switch - just don't like OSX and try to avoid it. I love the minimalist nature of the classic OS. Ah, I wish OSX had an optional appearance scheme that made it look much like OS 9... but that's another thread...
In any case, no OS 9 support means I'll stick with PS 7 for now
I join nacl99 in being annoyed MS DOS is not supported anymore
Really, a comparison to MS DOS is not far fetched. When I switched a few months ago I read up on OSX and 9. Frankly, I was shocked at the state of 9's memory management and multitasking. Even Win98 did a better job, sort of implementing protected memory and such. In an intro of OSX to switching 9'ers, I read the use of protected memory was introduced as new. This was introduced to the Intel line of processors with the 386. A long, long time ago: 1985. PPC processors had it from the start. IBM did quite a reasonable implementation back in OS/2.
Windows 1 up to ME are descendants of the MS DOS based line. NT, Win2k and XP were new (you probably know what NT stands for). The DOS legacy is supposed to have died out: XP home and Pro are both from NT descent.
With regard to OS age, 9 is ancient. An OS should take care of operating your system. OSX/Darwin does that very well, according to present day standards. To the same standards, 9 doesn't cut it.
System 9 lived a full and happy life. Not surprisingly, it outlived it's DOS based counterparts, as its constitution generally was better and it didn't catch a virus quite as often. Now let it rest in peace and fondly remembered through it's sibling, Classic Environment.
M.
Originally posted by airmac
hehe, when did I say i spend just 5 minutes on OS X?! i own mdd duali that boots in both systems. Look, i use it a lot for mail stuff (now this is funny) because for the first time jaguar can produce all slovenian characters so i can exchange data with my pc customers. This is really important for us and jaguar has a good support for ss and unicode fonts and that is also a big step forward. I'm also using Corel 11 (which is slow as.......slow) and bunch of other, well I admit, helpful utility softwares. I'm also not so thrilled with the speed of Indesign, but again the character issue is better supported. I'm not a newbie in jaguar as you pointed and as a loyal mac customer since 1991 I'm entitled to judge anything apple delivers...
now it's 3 a.m. here so I'm going to bed...
I was talking to the guy with the iMac 333. Not you
Re: 16-Bit Editing
the 16 bit per channel debut was in 3.0 actually, i'm guessing that it's now more integrated? in previous versions you had MUCH reduced functionality in PS when you were using 64 bit images
unless I'm misinterpreting this and it's actually 4 bits per channel... but it doesn't make any sense to to add that feature today. maybe in 1992, but not in 2003!
the 16 bit per channel debut was in 3.0 actually, i'm guessing that it's now more integrated? in previous versions you had MUCH reduced functionality in PS when you were using 64 bit images
unless I'm misinterpreting this and it's actually 4 bits per channel... but it doesn't make any sense to to add that feature today. maybe in 1992, but not in 2003!
Re: OS 9 support
All of these comparisions to older Windows OS just doesn't fly. Before you rip on me, hear me out. First, you have to remember Windows is based on DOS or NT - both of which have been around for 6+ years at least. Thus, it is very easy to support apps when the core of the OS hasn't changed much.
With OS X Apple said we want something better than windows. They had a choice - either maintain system compatability for 9 by keeping it at the core of the OS or go with something totally different at the core and find someway to keep support for old apps around for a while. We all know the went for option 2. Guess what? Now is the time where if you are staying current with Mac you need to be in OS X. OS X is much better at the core because they ditched 9. It was a decent OS (IMHO - not great, but decent) but couldn't really be advanced much further.
We also have to remember reality - windows has the biggest market share. Thus, developers can make more $$$ back from their investment to maintain older support for windows 95/98/etc. Mac developers can't do that to such an extent. They kind of get caught - don't develop and now you aren't keeping up; don't support 9 and how dare you ditch "the faithful."
I, for one, am very glad Apple went with unix at the core of 10. For those who are still hanging back because you just "don't like the look/feel" of OS X - force yourself to use it for a few weeks. You might be suprised what happens.
All of these comparisions to older Windows OS just doesn't fly. Before you rip on me, hear me out. First, you have to remember Windows is based on DOS or NT - both of which have been around for 6+ years at least. Thus, it is very easy to support apps when the core of the OS hasn't changed much.
With OS X Apple said we want something better than windows. They had a choice - either maintain system compatability for 9 by keeping it at the core of the OS or go with something totally different at the core and find someway to keep support for old apps around for a while. We all know the went for option 2. Guess what? Now is the time where if you are staying current with Mac you need to be in OS X. OS X is much better at the core because they ditched 9. It was a decent OS (IMHO - not great, but decent) but couldn't really be advanced much further.
We also have to remember reality - windows has the biggest market share. Thus, developers can make more $$$ back from their investment to maintain older support for windows 95/98/etc. Mac developers can't do that to such an extent. They kind of get caught - don't develop and now you aren't keeping up; don't support 9 and how dare you ditch "the faithful."
I, for one, am very glad Apple went with unix at the core of 10. For those who are still hanging back because you just "don't like the look/feel" of OS X - force yourself to use it for a few weeks. You might be suprised what happens.