×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Replacements For Adobe Creative Suite 3 Apps?

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the best-of-luck-to-ye dept.

Graphics 270

Gilmoure writes "With rumors of Adobe not supporting Creative Suite 3 applications on Mac OS X 10.6, I was wondering what Open Source apps folks would recommend to replace Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver? If the apps can work with the native file formats, all the better but if they provide the same functionality, that's still good. I have several designer friends that are looking forward to the speed boost of OS X 10.6 but don't want to go through the Adobe upgrades so soon after the CS2 to CS3 upgrades. Especially when Adobe's already working on CS5."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

270 comments

To edit, or create (2, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209045)

Are you using these open source apps to edit, or create new files in the native adobe file formats? Creating typically requires more features than a simple editor.

Re:To edit, or create (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209367)

If he's using them at all, it is because he piratebayed them. The entire question is thinly veiled OSS astroturf based on today's tech headlines, the "designer friends" don't actually exist.

Re:To edit, or create (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209503)

Somewhere, in a basement, a total geeklord surrounded by his linux boxen. The Star Trek red-alert siren beeps from his thriftshop Logitech speakers as his Digg RSS feed is updated. "Oh god", he thinks as his pants turn sticky, "Adobe CS3 is not supported?!? The day has finally arrived for 'The GIMP' to take over the universe!"

Quickly, he draws upon his sexual fantasies of Mac-using deisgners as his best homosexual buddies. Realizing Digg will never vote up his question, he turns to Ask Slashdot, an ugly forgotten relic of when people thought Linux had a chance at the desktop market.

Meanwhile GIMP still sucks ass and nobody uses it.

Re:To edit, or create (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209613)

Meanwhile GIMP still sucks ass and nobody uses it.

It's a challenge to suck when one has a ball-gag in their mouth...

Re:To edit, or create (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210095)

He piratebayed open source apps? Oh, the horror...

Don't bother (4, Informative)

kryptKnight (698857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209061)

I've been using the Snow Leopard developer preview for the past couple months, and Adobe CS3 is working fine.

There's a difference between not working and not being officially supported.

Re:Don't bother (3, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209099)

works, fine.

supported, no.

support is a huge thing if you are using adobe in your career.

Re:Don't bother (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209235)

support is a huge thing if you are using adobe in your career.

If you're a professional, odds are you're not going to be paying to upgrade your business to a brand new, unsupported operating system just because you can. Adobe never said that they were going to stop supporting CS3 for use in OSs it was designed for. This is a non-issue for businesses.

Re:Don't bother (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209597)

I've been using Photoshop since, oh, version 4. Adobe has never had anything resembling 'support' for any of it's products. They have KB articles which occasionally have something to do with an issue you are having. There are user supported forums which are often useful. But calling Adobe? Writing Adobe? Perhaps if you're some large shop with "Gold Support" (as in you give them the gold) it's more useful. But for normal end users Adobe has been just as unhelpful as everybody else in the business.

There have been dozens of bugs in every version of Photoshop that aren't fixed until the new version comes out - then the come out with NEW bugs.

Re:Don't bother (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209687)

Agreed, well maybe it's worse than you state. I found a cross platform bug in InDesign. It would consistently crash on Windows or OS X and made one of their lesser known but advertised features completely useless for a large number of shops. I reported the bug multiple times, in detail and it still persisted through three versions. Heck, it's probably still there, I haven't checked the latest version because I have not bothered to upgrade.

Re:Don't bother (1)

dhaines (323241) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210125)

I've been using Photoshop since, oh, version 4. Adobe has never had anything resembling 'support' for any of it's products...

Hell I haven't felt like Adobe supported Photoshop CS3 on 10.5, so I'm sure not expecting anything with 10.6. Even the latest Photoshop on the latest Mac OS seems janky.

Maybe CS5 will have Painty the talking paintbrush. "Hello, it looks like you're trying to add a new adjustment layer..."

Re:Don't bother (1)

qamerr (1618331) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210709)

I had an issue with font rendering in Photoshop 4 and called Adobe support. Other than having a licensed version of Photoshop I didn't have a support contract, the support rep spent a couple hours on the phone and we got the problem resolved.. Of course that was ~10 years ago.

Re:Don't bother (1)

2short (466733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209921)


They don't support an old version on a not-yet-released OS; so that's hardly shocking.

You correctly point out that some people might, even reasonably, want to run officially supported software.

Taking the original posters question at face value, their concern is that they only want to run officially supported software, and they wonder if there is an open source package they hasn't heard of previously for a not yet released OS that will answer this concern? Assuming, for the sake of argument, the poster is smarter than a turnip, they can figure out the answer is "No." So posting this to Ask Slashdot has some other motivation. I've no idea what.

Re:Don't bother (1)

Cloud K (125581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210075)

And how many OSS apps have "official support" exactly?

Some projects may be backed by the likes of Redhat, who will let you pay for "support" (basically a piece of paper to keep the company's suits happy), but for most OSS out there you're relying on community forums and wikis like everyone else.

Re:Don't bother (1)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210301)

but for most OSS out there you're relying on community forums and wikis like everyone else.

Or the developers themselves which, if they take their software seriously, is the best kind of help you can get.

I've had to use various commercially supported server-side products in the past, most of the time "support" entails being read from a script by some guy in a callcenter what you've already tried, after which you're out of luck. There were a couple of products that did have proper support, but you never know what you're going to get.

With open source you either have large projects where forums and wikis are useful enough, or small projects where you can communicate directly with the developers. Being able to talk to the guys who wrote the damn code is always the fastest and most efficient route (after which some beer-money goes their way).

Re:Don't bother (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210111)

support is a huge thing if you are using adobe in your career.

What particular problems have you encountered that having support was able to dig you out of?

Re:Don't bother (2, Funny)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210769)

support is a huge thing if you are using adobe in your career.

What particular problems have you encountered that having support was able to dig you out of?

Having someone else to blame.

Re:Don't bother (3, Interesting)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210275)

Perhaps it depends on the professional involved. I've been using Adobe since 1993 and the only time I called up their support was because their DRM had locked me out of running CS2 on a new system (the old system was destroyed in an accident so could not be manually de-authorized). Besides that, I can't think of one reason why I need support from them beyond such unforeseen installation issues. As others have mentioned, if you're using it for business then there's no real necessity to upgrade to 10.6.

Re:Don't bother (4, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210747)

works, fine.

supported, no.

support is a huge thing if you are using adobe in your career.

In that case, you can buy CS4.

Solutions:

1. Stay with 10.5 and CS3
2. Move to 10.6, use CS3 (which presumably works just fine, but if it doesn't, it's not Adobe's problem)
3. Move to 10.6 and CS4

It seems to me this is a non-issue, other than it's good to be aware of it so you can make the right choice for you. For most people (pros and amateurs alike), option 2 is probably the best.

If you're a Pro and you really want to use 10.6 and really want the peace of mind official support, then you can fork out for CS4.

On the other hand, moving from Photoshop (Illustrator, etc.) to some Open Source program is going to be, for most pros, worse than any of the three options listed.

I don't mean to say that the GIMP or Inkscape or whatever are bad, just that the switchover is going to be more jarring than any of those three options.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209063)

How about CS4? :)

Crazy idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209085)

How about cs4?

DigiKam, Ufraw-GiMP (1)

Anna Merikin (529843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209089)

I use these all the time for photo processing. These are very effective programs giving many kinds of control over photo images.

Respectively: (4, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209173)

Gimp, Inkscape, Scribus*, Nvu.

*I haven't actually used Scribus myself.

Gimp and Inkscape can import the native formats of Photoshop and Illustrator, respectively. There are many alternatives to Nvu, it's just the one I've used. However, I usually just write the HTML myself, for which Kate is very useful and user-friendly, supporting syntax highlighting for HTML, CSS, PHP, Javascript and so on (at the same time, if necessary).

Re:Respectively: (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209203)

These are my suggestions from a Linux perspective; It's possible that not all of these have MacOS ports (and I know Mac people have a fierce aversion to X11 apps).

Re:Respectively: (5, Informative)

smartr (1035324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209419)

I'm a big fan of GIMP. I just set up the GIMP on OS X... It's a mess and since X11 treats the separate windows like separate programs so you have to set up options for X11 to enable click-through (then again X11 is already pretty much violating everything under the sun in terms of how OS X user interface works). I'm surprised it doesn't mention on the front page in big letters to enable this setting. If the GIMP was already inaccessible to those new to it given all the right clicking (a mac favorite), the automatic behavior of click to focus, click to draw, click to focus, click to change to gradient tool, click to focus on layer window, click to add a layer, get a window slightly off the screen, move it, click "ok", click to focus on the drawing pane window, click to draw a gradient... If you aren't knowledgeable enough to realize that this extra clicking isn't normal behavior, then figure out to fix it, the GIMP looks like a flaming piece of junk on OS X. If you have used the GIMP significantly, it still makes for an obnoxious hurdle.

Re:Respectively: (2, Informative)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209561)

Interesting post. I've never noticed all of the clicking because I use focus follows mouse.

Re:Respectively: (1)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210099)

Yeah, I find the GIMP so unusable on OS X i paid for Pixelmator, which is pretty damn good. Its not as feature-complete as GIMP but for 95% of my tasks its pretty good.

Actually, I paid for Pixel32 as well, but that turned out badly, as the developer (Pavel Kanzelberger) is a total dick.

Would be interested in donating to an effort to improve the GIMPs UI, its pretty clear the core developers aren't interested.

try gimp.app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210625)

http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/

Re:Respectively: (1)

salted (1390595) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210703)

You aren't going to find anything that will replace your tools with opensource software.You're a professional and you should be playing with these types of tools if you ever want to do something highly productive. Sure they do the same types of stuff, but if they did everything just as good, had more features, or even worked decently, it would put adobe out of business. Also, the time you will spend attempting to figure out new software is more valuable than buying a pc and all the software you need. Photoshop has a 64 bit version for the pc already and its 32 bit version runs 10-15% faster than on a mac. I've used Gimp at work since they won't buy a copy of photoshop and I have to say that you get what you pay for. While Gimp is great in the way that its free, it does jack compared to anything newer than photoshop 6. Just try to easily adjust drop shadow, transform images and do color adjustments, or work with very large documents. Sorry, but this is what you get for being a mac fan. Just dump the mac and get onboard the pc train.

Re:Respectively: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209879)

If you don't mind closed source software, there is a program called Pixelmator that gives PhotoShop a run for its money. Workflows might change slightly, since they company used different names for the menu items. But they keyboard shortcuts are the same. And it is significantly cheaper than Photoshop, while retaining compatibility with Photoshop plugins.

Not an ad. I was just very pleased with it when I tried it.

Re:Respectively: (3, Informative)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210195)

Gimp and Inkscape can import the native formats of Photoshop and Illustrator, respectively.

Be careful with this. While inkscape does a better job than gimp, both can't import the files fully. Gimp only has VERY basic interpretation of photoshop files. It will import layers, raster layer masks, layer effects, and some layer styles. Beyond that you're SOL. If you use any vector based maps, hue/curves/contrast/etc layers, smart objects, perspective, etc, then gimp will interpret the file incorrectly.
Inkscape is a bit better with .ai files, but you'll have to do without any gradient meshes and some other advanced styling.

Gimp needs a lot of work still. It's great for quick fixes, but for larger scale projects/companies it just isn't worth it. Inkscape is fantastic though. It has some VERY nice vector capabilities. I've used it extensively for icon work, and I have to say that for making straight .svg files I prefer it over Illustrator.

Re:Respectively: (1)

pz (113803) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210215)

Gimp, Inkscape, Scribus*, Nvu.

*I haven't actually used Scribus myself.

Gimp and Inkscape can import the native formats of Photoshop and Illustrator, respectively. There are many alternatives to Nvu, it's just the one I've used. However, I usually just write the HTML myself, for which Kate is very useful and user-friendly, supporting syntax highlighting for HTML, CSS, PHP, Javascript and so on (at the same time, if necessary).

I use both Photoshop (under Windows) and GIMP (under Fedora). I use each program for a different reason, and under different circumstances. But this is clear: Photoshop is a serious tool, while GIMP is a not-so-serious tool. Anything that requires more than a cursory manipulation is best done with Photoshop, along with absolutely anything that requires color manipulation, 16 bit depth, or CMYK, no matter how simple.

In other words, while they have overlapping utility, GIMP is not a replacement for Photoshop. Not by a long shot.

Re:Respectively: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210495)

> 16 bit depth

I've never understood this complaint. You have either 8 bit (256 colour) graphics for the early web, or 24 bit (full colour) for full print-ready work, but 16 bit? Why bother with 16 bit support? Its only usefulness was for monitors/graphics cards in the early 1990s that didn't support 24 bit colour due to a lack of RAM, and this was in the days when a four MEGABYTE graphics card was large. Nowadays we have 512MB cards and higher as standard; the requirement for such low bit depths is long gone.

Looking for 16 bit colour support is like checking a modern car for a crank handle, it's utterly pointless and anyone complaining that Gimp doesn't have it is simply looking for a reason to support Adobe. Brainwashing etc, call it what you will.

Re:Respectively: (0)

Guido von Guido (548827) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210777)

I've never understood this complaint. You have either 8 bit (256 colour) graphics for the early web, or 24 bit (full colour) for full print-ready work, but 16 bit? Why bother with 16 bit support? Its only usefulness was for monitors/graphics cards in the early 1990s that didn't support 24 bit colour due to a lack of RAM, and this was in the days when a four MEGABYTE graphics card was large. Nowadays we have 512MB cards and higher as standard; the requirement for such low bit depths is long gone.

Looking for 16 bit colour support is like checking a modern car for a crank handle, it's utterly pointless and anyone complaining that Gimp doesn't have it is simply looking for a reason to support Adobe. Brainwashing etc, call it what you will.

I gather you're not a photographer. I'm not aware of a camera on the market that supports 24 bit raw files, including expensive medium format digital camera backs like Phase One [wikipedia.org]. Raw files taken by most cameras are in fact 12 or 14 bits. Converting the file prematurely to 24 bits would increase the file size and the memory used by the image program without any real benefit.

Re:Respectively: (3, Informative)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210409)

Inkscape can have a LOT of issues aith AI and even many EPS files. We have a lot of people who need to view artwork from customers where I work and I tried like hell to get rid of Illustrator...but we had a majority of files that wouldn't work with it.

Other than that, it's a great vector art program.

And if I was doing something wrong witrh Inkscape, please tell me, I would love to give Adobe the boot.

Re:Respectively: (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210423)

Nvu is old and unsupported.

Coda might be a better option, although it's commercial and not open source, it really is a very good editor.

(I'm probably going to get chided for this on Slashdot, and it doesn't really answer the question, but I actually like Visual Studio's HTML editor best, if you have access to a Windows machine you can run Visual Web Developer Express for free. Or buy Expression Web, it's pretty affordable.)

Last I tried Inkscape on Mac, it was an X11 app and didn't run natively, and it had extremely basic bugs in it. (i.e. the open dialog couldn't sort alphabetically), which I think were inherited from the GTK+ toolkit it uses. I wouldn't recommend it unless the Mac user has a *lot* of patience for buggy, alien-looking apps. (Most don't.) Unfortunately, I don't know of a better alternative.

Re:Respectively: (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210719)

(I'm probably going to get chided for this on Slashdot, and it doesn't really answer the question, but I actually like Visual Studio's HTML editor best, if you have access to a Windows machine you can run Visual Web Developer Express for free. Or buy Expression Web, it's pretty affordable.)

On a side note, SharePoint Designer -- the middle child of that program -- is free with validation of windows. Think FrontPage done right.

Re:Respectively: (2, Informative)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210513)

Gimp

Note that if you need to open old PS files or deal with new ones from other people, Gimp does not support all of the features of the .ps format. Notably, it's lacking support for some (all?) layer effects, like drop shadow. They'll just disappear when you open the .ps in The GIMP.

Re:Respectively: (1)

gslj (214011) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210635)

For web page editing on the Mac, designers might prefer using Freeway (http://www.softpress.com/). It lets people lay out web pages, do button actions, etc. using a desktop publishing metaphor. I've played with it in the past, and it looked slick, but haven't used it in depth nor recently.

-Gareth

Re:Respectively: (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210695)

*I haven't actually used Scribus myself.

Last I checked, Scribus still had a god-awful "no, we won't let you put in bold text. you need to manually change your font to Courier Bold" policy.

Which is a shame, 'cause I was almost excited when the windows native came out.

I don't get it (3, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209187)

I was wondering what Open Source apps folks would recommend to replace Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver?

If such applications existed, Adobe wouldn't still be in business.

With rumors of Adobe not supporting Creative Suite 3 applications on Mac OS X 10.6

Forgive my ignorance, but what does the operating system version have to do with anything? Why wouldn't Adobe CS3 (which isn't all that terribley old) not run on a new release of OSX? Is Apple really that retarded?

Re:I don't get it (1)

victim (30647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209309)

No, but Adobe is. They have a long history of doing stupid things, then waiting until the actual consumer release to "discover" that their product has a problem and not fixing it until the next major release thereby preventing their users from upgrading OS.

In this case CS3 may actually work, they just aren't going to promise it so people will pay to upgrade and Adobe doesn't have to do any support on CS3.

Re:I don't get it (1)

victim (30647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209365)

I should add, my copy of Illustrator for Mac is 5 years old and works like a champ. So, depending what you do with CS you may not even care.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209653)

Wha?? Apple releases new version of their OS. They changed/dropped bunch of old APIs which causes problems with older apps. How is that Adobe's fault??

Can you *guarantee* that the app you writing now will run smoothly on a new OS after 5 years?

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209825)

"Can you *guarantee* that the app you writing now will run smoothly on a new OS after 5 years?"

Surely not. But if I, as a VAR, am testing the new OS releases when still alpha, beta and "for limited distribution only", you can bet I'll be able to anticipate if my programs will run or not on them prior to their public launch.

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209733)

No, but Adobe is. They have a long history of doing stupid things, then waiting until the actual consumer release to "discover" that their product has a problem and not fixing it until the next major release thereby preventing their users from upgrading OS.

Since I have Windows apps from 1995 that run just fine on 64 bit Windows 7, I guess I just don't get the concept of a new OS version that breaks existing apps.

Re:I don't get it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210119)

Yeah, well that 1995 malware still runs in win7 too -- real smart!
"Microsoft -- because bad design never goes out of style"

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209417)

Yes, because Linux has put Microsoft out of business.

Linux isn't a replacement for Windows (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210017)

If you think it is, well that tells me you don't know a whole lot about what people do with their computers. There are many reasons why it isn't, a major one would be that not all the apps people need have Linux versions. Supposing Linux was a true replacement for Windows, in that you could take any person using Windows and get them on Linux doing the same thing, no problems, well you wouldn't see so much Windows out there any more. Hard to compete with free.

So while I'm sure you can find apps that are in roughly the same market as the Adobe ones, they aren't replacements. GIMP is an image editor and thus in the same general area is Photoshop and Illustrator, but it isn't a replacement for them. It is not as capable, not as easy to use, not as well documented, and not as integrated with other prepress products. So while GIMP may work if you need an image editor, it will not work if you need Photoshop.

Re:Linux isn't a replacement for Windows (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210691)

That works both ways. After using a Mac at home, Linux at work and on my netbook, and even an iTouch, Windows has the most constricted, barely-functional desktop around. Most of the software I want to use works poorly, if it all, and you have to buy or download sketchy utilities to do the most trivial things.

I've tried using Windows before, but it's just so lacking in software and basic usability when compared to KDE or OS X (or even the iTouch) that I've never been able to stick with it very long.

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209429)

Alternatives to expensive commercial apps exist but it requires relearning and retooling. This is not something that individuals or companies are interested in. And when it comes to data sharing and data interchange, these proprietary apps' file formats are defacto standards.

The F/OSS community has been making progress on this though. SVG format is becoming more commonplace and if GiMP were to come up with a similar "open standard format" that would be awesome. (Yes, I know GiMP format *is* technically and open format, but it is not a standard in any larger body of standards for information transmission or interchange such as ISO or W3C.)

Furthermore, there are PATENT roadblocks standing in the way of competition to Adobe Creative Suite. One of the most significant patents are those surrounding CMYK implementation. So the patent system, often cited as the motivation for creativity and innovation, is a big part of why Adobe doesn't have much competition at the moment. Once the patents expire or software patents are outlawed or otherwise brought into more reasonable terms, we will see a lot more competition.

Your ignorance is forgiven, but what you are seeing is largely the effect of vendor lock-in, and not evidence of any superiority of quality.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209575)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does the operating system version have to do with anything? Why wouldn't Adobe CS3 (which isn't all that terribley old) not run on a new release of OSX? Is Apple really that retarded?

It's not that it won't run, it's that it's not fully supported. Adobe is supporting CS4 on Snow Leopard and won't devote resources to testing and fixing problems CS3 may have running on the new OS.

See here [adobe.com].

Also, it's part Apple being retarded by not keeping Carbon up to date without working out how Adobe would transition to Cocoa first.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210041)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does the operating system version have to do with anything? Why wouldn't Adobe CS3 (which isn't all that terribley old) not run on a new release of OSX? Is Apple really that retarded?

News flash: Companies actually TEST their software before releasing it or supporting it. "Not supported" isn't the same as "will not run." CS3 was tested, but not on 10.6. The testing of a product the size of CS3 is hardly trivial. Why should they bother, when CS4 is already on the shelves and CS5 is already in development?

If your attitude is "I don't care whether you've tested it, just let me have it," then I don't think anybody is stopping you from trying. Just don't complain when something breaks.

Re:I don't get it (1)

shippo (166521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210213)

Some really old and depreciated API calls could get dropped in the transition between OS versions. When depreciated these calls will log error messages in the various log files.

Re:I don't get it (1)

consumer_whore (652448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210381)

If such applications existed, Adobe wouldn't still be in business.

If such vehicles existed, GM wouldn't still be in business. Oh Wait.

Re:I don't get it (1)

blueforce (192332) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210445)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does the operating system version have to do with anything?

You're forgiven.

OS X 10.6 is a major shift away from the Carbon (C++) framework to Cocoa (Objective-C) framework. In previous versions OS X supported both frameworks, but with the migration to "complete" 64 bit (the default is still 32, but that's another story) the choice was made to stop supporting both frameworks and Carbon lost. Adobe made a major shift between CS3 and CS4 too by dropping support for PPC and focusing only on Intel + cocoa. That's why the OS version matters.

But then, you could have figured that out Googling it with Bing instead of just using the word Retarded.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/144119/adobe_64bit_photoshop_struggle.html [pcworld.com]

Not Supported? or Doesn't Work? (2, Insightful)

godawful (84526) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209195)

I'd read about them not supporting CS3 in 10.6 as well, but I believe they just didn't test against it.. has anyone come out and said it flat out won't work? I guess I'd wait a bit and see if there are actually any problems before giving up ones workflow to try new apps that may or may not work in 10.6.

Re:Not Supported? or Doesn't Work? (2, Informative)

horigath (649078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209487)

John Nack, on his blog which is the original source [adobe.com], says:

[Update: No one said anything about CS3 being "not supported" on Snow Leopard. The plan, however, is not to take resources away from other efforts (e.g. porting Photoshop to Cocoa) in order to modify 2.5-year-old software in response to changes Apple makes in the OS foundation.]

And also things like:

I'd frankly be shocked if people at Adobe & Apple really hadn't tested CS3 on 10.6. I *think* it's just some corporate conservatism at work here, and Adobe doesn't want to over-promise anything.

So all in all: No Big Deal

Re:Not Supported? or Doesn't Work? (3, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209491)

I have 10.6 (build 10A421a) and Adobe Creative Suite 3 installed on this MacBook Pro. It works just fine.

Much ado about nothing.

Re:Not Supported? or Doesn't Work? (1)

vitaflo (20507) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209509)

has anyone come out and said it flat out won't work?

No, and you're right. All Adobe said is they're not going to test CS3 in 10.6. This doesn't mean it won't work, it just means they're not bothering to test whether it does or not. Nobody is really going to know until Friday, but people with dev builds say it runs with some minor bugs. Really though, CS3 is buggy enough I doubt it'll be much of a deterrent.

Re:Not Supported? or Doesn't Work? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210081)

Technically, Adobe Photoshop CS4 64-bit is only supported on 64-bit Windows Vista, but I've been using it on 64-bit XP for over a month without any problems. Adobe's online documentation only states that "Although 64-bit Photoshop CS4 was not thoroughly tested under Windows XP64, and therefore is not supported, it should run." The OpenGL features (mostly minor GUI improvements like smooth zooming) are disabled by default, but you can still enable them in the options. There's also a registry script included with Photoshop CS4 called "AllowOldGPUs_ON" that the documentation says is necessary to enable the OpenGL features in XP64, but I didn't have to run it.

I'm guessing the situation is probably similar with OS X 10.6. It'll probably work fine, but for whatever reason they just don't want to guaranty anything.

10.5? (-1, Flamebait)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209215)

I understand from the summary that Mac OS-X 10.5 is broken beyond repair and will magically stop working somewhere in the coming months so an OS upgrade is an absolute necessity?
It's also weird that 10.6 is so incredibly incompatible with 10.5 that the CS3 suite won't work on it. Or does Adobe just claim the obvious that any software developer would also claim; "we developed it for 10.5, we can't guarentee it'll work on 10.6".

Nice FUD on the front page editors (5, Insightful)

Holi (250190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209261)

Lets put it this way. Your OS does not make you productive, the applications do. If you rely on certain applications then you should not be an early adopter of an OS, you should wait to see if people have problems. With that being said, what have you heard about CS3 not working in 10.6, personally I have been using it for awhile and I have not seen many incompatibilities, just a couple of issues with parts of CS4 that I don't use.

Oh and the speed boost is not all that drastic. The OS feels snappier, but applications in general feel like they run out of memory after awhile. 10.5 felt like it had better memory management. This goes for Adobe, Office, and all my games (Prey, Sim City, Homeworld 2, etc).

On a side note can they fix the damned text entry fields in Slashdot my mouse only works on like half of it,

Re:Nice FUD on the front page editors (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209547)

Lets put it this way. Your OS does not make you productive, the applications do.

Which is why everyone uses Windows. Thanks for clarifying that.

Re:Nice FUD on the front page editors (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209581)

yup.. shouldn't this be "I'm an Apple fanboi who is going to install the latest operating system update come what may, even if the software I use for a living doesn't work, because Steve Jobs says I should. I don't want to pay to update these other apps, so could the community recommend a whole bunch of open source apps that aren't up to the job, even after installing/trying the 20 or so on recommendations from the community. At no point will i address the fact that trying/learning all the holes in this new software will have a time penalty, which is a cost in itself. And I can't be bothered to weigh that up against the cost of a CS4 upgrade license. I also fail to acknowledge that if there was a FOSS program even nearly as good as photoshop, I would have damn well heard about it by now from a million blogs going 'ZOMG! THROW YOUR PHOTOSHOP AWAY' "

apart from that, its pretty accurate.

Re:Nice FUD on the front page editors (1)

tentimestwenty (693290) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209751)

You might be used to Windows or Linux upgrades which are typically slower and more feature laden than their predecessors. In this case I'd agree, the OS does very little to increase productivity if you have specialized needs like graphics creation. However, OS X is generally getting faster with each release, the OS gets "smarter" and by nature the multi-window-one-toolbar orientation of OS X lends itself to some nifty interface advantages for people who have 20 or 30 windows open and active at a time across multiple programs. I would say each OS X release has given me 5% more productivity because of speed and window management/file management features they've added. The #1 reason I want Leopard is for this same reason. It's supposed to be faster, require less disc space and the new UI advancements will save me lots of time, maybe 30 minutes a day if you calculated it.

Re:Nice FUD on the front page editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209909)

Macs have games? When did that happen?

Re:Nice FUD on the front page editors (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210005)

But you have an Apple, only the cool kids have those, and you have to be on the bleeding edge all the time otherwise you are not cool.

Jump the gun much? (2, Insightful)

stillpixel (1575443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209289)

10.6 has been in developer hands for awhile now with no mention of the CS3 apps not working. Adobe themselves have not said that they don't work, just that they have not tested them. Basically they are trying to spread their own FUD to get you to upgrade to CS4 (inferior in my opinion).

Re:Jump the gun much? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209915)

If CS4 actually worked, it might be worth it. As long as CS4 won't even install [thinkingdigitally.com] on my machine, not supporting Snow Leopard in CS3 just means my money will go towards supporting one of their competitors like Pixelmator. Adobe, I'll install when the new version of the app is worth installing, which means A. 64-bit, and B. case-sensitive-safe.

OP sounds like astroturfing to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209333)

Let's stir up a scare over nothing!

There are alternatives, but YMMV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209363)

Image Editing: GIMP
Vector-based Drawing: Inkscape
Page Layout: Scribus
WYSWYG HTML Editor: Mozilla Composer or KompoZer

There are many others in each of these categories, and these may or may not be available for your platform.

well (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209481)

I consider the money I spent on CS 3 (student discount, $1000) to be a complete waste. Ugly as fuck, slow, lots of bugs and quirks. I use CS4 at work (windows) and haven't seen any reason to upgrade.

Dreamweaver: I prefer Coda. No WYSIWYG editor, but I've stopped using Dreamweaver completely. There's also espresso, which is probably similar.

Fireworks: DrawIt has a few bugs and a few quirks, but I find it more pleasant to use, most of the time.

Photoshop: Acorn. If you're a power photoshop user, it won't suffice... depends on what you're doing. There's also pixelimator

Of course, none of those are open source. Most are the product of one or two people.

Re:well (2, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209665)

Dreamweaver: I prefer Coda. No WYSIWYG editor, but I've stopped using Dreamweaver completely.
Completely agree. I couldn't live without Coda now.

Photoshop: Acorn. If you're a power photoshop user, it won't suffice... depends on what you're doing. There's also pixelimator
Pixelmator is very good for what it costs, which is something like 5% of the sticker price of Photoshop. But like Acorn it won't satisfy you if you need all Photoshop's functionality.

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209927)

Pixelmator is buggy and glitchy as fuck. I *really* want to like it, but I can't.

Re:well (1)

ben0207 (845105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210053)

Yeah I use Acorn pretty much daily, and although it does a good 90% of what I used to do in Photoshop, the 10% forces me to keep CS1 installed (I refuse to update for feature I don't need)

Still no decent Illustrator replacement though.

Broaden the question, please (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209519)

I think more people would benefit from this discussion if responses also included other commercial and non-GNU/Free applications that are alternatives to Adobe's Creative Suite. If the responder feels it's important, he/she could still mention the license used and the remuneration expected, if any.

Nothing to see here, move along. (3, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209529)

I am posting from a MacBook Pro running the latest seed of 10.6, and I have Creative Suite 3 installed and running on it.

"We don't support it" â "It doesn't work, ever." My guess, is that they don't support it now as 10.6 is still a beta until Friday.

Try these (4, Informative)

nielo (840711) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209553)

Hi,
Firstly if you're looking for opensource app replacements you can always try www.osalt.com [osalt.com].

Personally I'd try:
Photoshop: GIMP [gimp.org] or GIMPShop [gimpshop.com] or Krita [koffice.org]
Illustrator: Inkscape [inkscape.org] or XaraXtreme [xaraxtreme.org]
InDesign: scribus [scribus.net]
Dreamweaver: KompoZer [kompozer.net] or Aptana [aptana.com] or seamonkey [seamonkey-project.org] or Amaya [w3.org] or href="http://net2.com/nvu/">NVU

I also found this website which might help: www.thefreesuite.com [thefreesuite.com]

Here are the relevant OSalt links:
photoshop [osalt.com]
illustrator [osalt.com]
indesign [osalt.com]
dreamweaver [osalt.com]

Re:Try these (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210417)

Thanks for a useful, plain English, non-aggressive reply. How very refreshing.

Thanks again.

Is 2.5 years "...so soon"? (1)

defstro (549100) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209555)

"I have several designer friends that are looking forward to the speed boost of OS X 10.6 but don't want to go through the Adobe upgrades so soon after the CS2 to CS3 upgrades." So soon? CS3 came out in March 2007.

Gimp, Inkscape and Bluefish. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209637)

Gimp, Inkscape and Bluefish.

I never use Bluefish, I mostly just write it from vi.

Anyone bought CS3? (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209805)

SafeCast overrides operating-system security and safeguards and writes directly to the boot track of the local disk as part of its operation ... Adobe also uses a version of SafeCast for its CS products, and has had similar but less frequent problems, particularly with certain types of disk configurations (RAID, multiple-boot), but continues to use the technology for copy protection.

Photoshop should not be in the boot track of my local disk.

What's wrong with CS4 (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209917)

CS4 should work. Adobe just won't be releasing patches for CS3 to update compatibility issues with the new OS. Until CS5 is out though (which probably isn't for AT LEAST 8 or 9 months considering Adobe's past release schedule) it'll only be 32-bit but, really, would you care?

Re:What's wrong with CS4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210615)

If you open images of any size then you'll care. Being able to address 4+ gigs of RAM is important.

Adobe alternatives on the DVD production side (1)

VVrath (542962) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209981)

I have a related, but slightly off-topic question - does anyone know of any decent FOSS alternative for the video production side of the Adobe suite? I'd dearly love to throw my XP partition away, but I can't find anything Free that'll match the combination of Premiere Pro (for video editing) and Encore (for DVD Authoring). In particular, none of the big hitters on the Linux video-editing front seem to offer support for multi-camera editing.

Meh, I suppose I could always save up for a Mac Pro and a copy of Final Cut Pro. Anyone wanna buy a kidney?

Seriously? (1)

angelbunny (1501333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210109)

The speed increase in 10.6 is mainly from the developer end so if you use cs3 and expect it to magically run faster you're kidding yourself.

Wait for cs5 and hopefully it will have a lot of openCL support and 64 bit support. That is when moving from 10.5 to 10.6 should be beneficial, not before.

Honestly, I'm worried cs6 will be the major jump in speed. It feels like years (because it is years) for developers to catch up. What gives?

Dreamweaver (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210351)

Definitely looking for a replacement for Dreamweaver. Since Adobe has owned it, the customer support has been awful.

Suggestions are welcome.

Opensource as an alternative to no support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210729)

If you are looking for support for an application, and asking for opensource, I feel sorry for you. I am not a fanboi of ANYTHING no less Adobe or Mac, but, despite running several linux boxes (CentOS,Redhat, and Gentoo) I can safely say, that documentation and support is seriously lacking for anything opensource. The lacking support of Adobe is infinitely times better than anything you're going to find form a free app.

CS5 : Sooner than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210741)

Adobe tends to run on 18-month cycles. CS3 was released 4/07; CS4 was released 10/08. So says the smart money.

-birdie

Photoshop 6, Illustrator 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29210759)

Use old software.
It is less expensive.
It does the job.
No need for costly, time consuming, wasteful upgrades.

What we really need is for Apple to continue supporting old software and not break software every time they come out with a new OS. They destroyed a lot of useful apps with the abandonment of Classic/OS9. There were more educational apps under that than there are under OSX.

Been there (5, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29210771)

I was wondering what Open Source apps folks would recommend to replace Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver?

Short answer: You can't. I might get modded down by open source zealots, but the truth is the sooner you forget about the whole idea the better. Using CS3 on an unsupported OS, or indeed switching to a supported OS, not to mention using the latest version (CS4, hello!?), are all infinitely less trouble than trying to do "professional" work with currently available open source tools that could replace it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...