Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Photoshop for OS X

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the brighter-colors-and-whiter-whites dept.

OS X 398

MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"

cancel ×

398 comments

Fist Sport (-1)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060329)

In and Out, In and Out

Killer App! (2, Funny)

SJ (13711) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060330)

Wooo Hooo!!! Now I can write PHP scripts and colour-correct my CMYK pRon on the same machine! YAY for multitasking!

Re:Killer App! (3, Funny)

Ford Fulkerson (223443) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060434)

Why stop there. You could write a PHP script that calls an AppleScript that colour-corrects your CMYK pr0n using Photoshop!

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060332)

fp! fuck logged-in crapflooding shitbags.

Re:fp? (-1)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060345)

No, Fuck You! You ball less AC cretin

Slashdot meta discussion GONE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060333)

The MetaSlashdot Discussion is now only a memory. This make good sense because if there is no activity on a discussion for 2 weeks the discussion is deleted. But I posted a comment on 2/13 at 11:42am. I was questioning, in that comment, why slashdot (which is anti-M$) was running ads for VS.NET? There were no replies. I didn't even think twice about looking for it yesterday, but I thought it looked strange... here is how it shows up on my list:

5 Please Explain [slashdot.org] posted on Wednesday February 13, @11:42AM (Score:-1)
attached to

Do you notice what is wrong? What is the comment attached to? (HINT: It should be the Meta Slashdot Discussion) Now try viewing the comment, it's not there...Where is it? Email CmdrTaco [mailto] and ask him to query for CID 3000553 on his database.

By the way, I'll try not to post with this account for a few days so that this comment stays on my comments list so that I have proof that I am telling the truth. Look at my comments [slashdot.org]

UPDATE: Here is a copy of an email from our good buddy Rob Malda:

From :
"Rob \"CmdrTaco\" Malda"

To :
"jajhj oiusd" , krow@slashdot.org

Subject :
Re: Please Explain

Date :
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:31:30 -0500

Looks like a bug to me.

On Friday 15 February 2002 10:14 am, you wrote:
> I posted a comment to the meta slash discussion on 2/13 at 11:42AM and the
> comment and the discussion are now gone. Why is that? Was there something
> in the discussion that needed to be deleted?
>
> I know that if there is no activity in a discussion for like 2 weeks then
> it will be deleted. But there was activity with in the past 2 days. What
> gives? here is a link to the comment I submitted
>
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26638&cid=3000 553


UPDATE: Shortly after posting this journal entry, I was banned.

This troll was reposted from the Troll Library [slashdot.org] without permission of the original author. If you object to this post, or if you wish to add your troll to the Troll Library, please reply to this message.

1st post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060335)

1st post i hope!
wwww.utgib.tk

Big day for Apple (2, Informative)

ciryon (218518) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060337)

I pretty sure they'll sell quite some more OS X packages now. I know many people have been waiting to upgrade from 9.x and Photoshop has been the main reason.

Ciryon

Re:Big day for Apple (2)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060427)

" pretty sure they'll sell quite some more OS X packages now. I know many people have been waiting to upgrade from 9.x and Photoshop has been the main reason."

Probably because their primary user base continues to be artists and publishers, which is a bit disturbing. PC users don't upgrade their OS's every time one particular app gets upgraded (although it helps). I've seen users run Office XP on first editions of Windows 98.

Re:Big day for Apple (5, Insightful)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060455)

PC users don't upgrade their OS's every time one particular app gets upgraded (although it helps).

To be fair, you're comparing apples and oranges. The last time the PC world saw such a tremendous shift in the capabilities of the base operating system was August 1995, when Windows 95 was released. After that, it's been incremenetal upgrades to the OS.

In late 1995, quite a lot of people were upgrading their applications (at least, the ones from MS) in order to take advantage of what Windows 95 offered. In this case, the particulars may be different, but the essence is the same: a lot of people want to upgrade their software to take advantage of what Mac OS X brings them.

Re:Big day for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060478)

"To be fair, you're comparing apples and oranges. The last time the PC world saw such a tremendous shift in the capabilities of the base operating system was August 1995, when Windows 95 was released. After that, it's been incremenetal upgrades to the OS."

Wrong and the origional poster was right.

Love it or hate it, MS has been more stable in their OS updates so that one did NOT have to buy the majority of their apps again. That's compatibility. Instead they worked on making compelling changes to their apps and used that to drive sales (budling/preloads helped too) If you compare 95 to NT or XP maybe you will notice that MS managed to shift the whole underlying internals of their OS while still keeping the majority of older apps compatible. Something Apple has not.

Re:Big day for Apple (2, Informative)

marmoset (3738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060517)

No, you are wrong.

The equivalent in the PC world was the shift to the Win32 API (debuted (really) in Windows 95) from 16-bit apps, which happened in 1995. The equivalent shift in the mac world is OSX with the Carbon and Cocoa API's, in 2001. What application running under Windows 3.1 are people still running without upgrading -- I'd like to know!

Re:Big day for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060546)

heh, wrong. graphics hasn't been the primary part of the mac user base for some time.

lately the os x user base has largely consisted of ex-linux users happy to have a *nix with a decent GUI. :)

heh

heh

Re:Big day for Apple (2, Informative)

KarmaPolice (212543) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060457)

I pretty sure they'll sell quite some more OS X packages now. I know many people have been waiting to upgrade from 9.x and Photoshop has been the main reason.
Why would that be? OS X can run MacOS 9.x programs as well as MacOS 9.x - it just loads the classic inviroment like OS/2 loaded the windows 3.x program manager to run windows software. It's a bit slow to start but otherwise it works like a charm...

Re:Big day for Apple (2)

llamalicious (448215) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060525)

PS on OSX is certainly a major reason, but there a few "critical" apps left to go. The ones I actually need before I can make the leap:

Dreamweaver UltraDev
Flash
Director

Is this really news? (0, Flamebait)

AirLace (86148) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060341)

Proprietary software gets released for the Apple Macintosh. When there are amazing Free Software projects around the world that are dying for a little publicity, why is news of a proprietary piece of software released by Adobe, a company that has shown contempt for peoples' rights, for Apple Macintoshes, another proprietary system that isn't even targeted at geeks, supposed to interest me?

OT: How to set preferences (1)

beezly (197427) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060356)

AirLace,

You have an account. Are you incapable of changing your homepage preferences to exclude the stuff your not interested in?

If your not sure how to do it, click on here [slashdot.org] and use some imagination rather than whinging about it.

Re:OT: How to set preferences (1, Troll)

AirLace (86148) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060388)

Sure, I could configure it myself. Hell, I could download Slashcode, set it up to use the RSS provided by Slashdot and then tweak the Perl code to my heart's content.

That's not what it's about. It's all about the defaults. Have you noticed how the Apache news, the BSD news only rarely makes it to the front page? What I'm saying is that both of these topics are more geeky than Apple, which is just a company producing consumer hardware and software, and Adobe which seems not to have any interests in the geek community whatsoever.

This kind off news should be restricted to the OS X pages by default. Sure, I have no vendetta against proprietary systems and software, but it looks rather silly when Slashdot, most famous for its popularity in the Linux community, posts on its front page an article that has no bearing on its target audience -- programmers, Linux users, geeks.

This is some photo editing software for an OS designed for the computer-illiterate. Just think about it: What would the response be if an article about Microsoft Photo Editor being released for Microsoft Windows XP made it to the front page? Double standards and hypocracy, I say!

Re:OT: How to set preferences (1)

cloroxcowboy (561432) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060398)

This is a big deal. Adobe carries allot of users with their products. Graphic Designers are numerous and without tools they will not follow the movement to X. It may not be earth shattering but it is news and it will change the dynamics involving the users on X. It may not right now seem as big as when Corel came to Linux. However over time it may have a far greater impact.

Re:OT: How to set preferences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060400)

AOL has more users than any other single computer entity outside Microsoft, should we expect that major and minor releases of their software will be front page news at Slashdot now too?

Re:OT: How to set preferences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060435)

Consider the possiblilty that there are many more Photoshop users here than AOL users. :P

You must think Slashdot is a Linux site (0)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060589)

I think the main problem is you seem to think Slashdot is a Linux site. Its not. Its a site for geeks and techies. That also covers Mac users now with OS X. Do you complain when AIX, Solaris, HP-UX and Tru64 news is posted? Because those are also proprietary operating systems. But you see that doesn't matter, since they're geeky operating systems.

The defining standard for news to be posted on Slashdot is not "Does this promote opensource" but rather "Is this geeky enough or interesting enough for our audience?"

One would have thought that after Slashdot added apple.slashdot.org it would be obvious that there is a sizeable Mac using audience who visits Slashdot.

Re:Is this really news? (1)

einstein (10761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060364)

yeah, this is big news. there are a multitude of people who want to use OSX for their everyday computing, but can't because their main app wasn't working on the OSX yet, though I agree that their are definitely some attention starved free projects out there.
---

Re:Is this really news? (2, Insightful)

SJ (13711) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060366)

Trying not to be flamebait, but could you please show me a Free Software project in the same category as Photoshop (read, Graphics app) that even come close to matching PS's feature set and usability. And No... GIMP isn't even in the same league as Photoshop. I have tried both and speak from experience. Thats not to say GIMP isn't a good program, because it is.

I understand that you value free software, and for good reason. But Photoshop is THE app for OSX, as far as Apple's core graphics market is concerned.

Give please at least give credit where credit is due.

Re:Is this really news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060397)

Why is the parent post modded down? This was my thought exactly! Another lame advertisement for companies that don't care about your freedom one bit. While I understand it could be something of a bias, I'd prefer a site where the news was decidedly geeky (as in programming, math, science only), free-software-centric, and didn't involve reading about video games (except stories like making a vector game out of a wall and a laser), anime, Apple, and the latest DVD movie release. Any suggestions?

"Any suggestions?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060590)

Start your own site. [slashcode.com]

Re:Is this really news? (2, Funny)

Penrod Pooch (466103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060463)

Because OSX is like a really, really cool toy, like. And 'round here we really, really, like cool toys. It is much more important than freedom because you can't use freedom as a really, really cool toy.

Therefore we choose to ignore the proprietary nature of OSX and Photoshop, we choose to ignore that Apple threatend to sue people who make themes that looked like OSX and we choose to ignore that Adobe invoked the DMCA to have Dimitry Sklyarov arrested because apple and adobe makes really, really cool toys. And nothing is more important to us slashdot-dwellers than really, really cool toys.

Finally someone who gets it (0)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060597)

Despite your sarcastic comments, you only point out the obvious.

Slashdot isn't a solely opensource free software site. Its also a site for geeks who just like cool things in general. The world would really start to suck if you exclude the products of companies who have done bad things in the past. All we would be left with are extremely boring SourceForge projects that are still at the 0.04 beta level of progress. How many of THOSE stories does one need to read?

weird idea maybe (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060342)

but now that it is ported to Mac OS X wouldn't it be relatively easy to port it to other unix-like environments?

NO (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060353)

It's been said a hundred times. The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa, which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS. Some years ago Photoshop (3.0) was ported to Irix using a MacOS->motif toolkin. It sucked ass. You won't see any OS X app running on *ix/X anytime soon.

Re:NO (2, Interesting)

D_Fresh (90926) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060396)

The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa, which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS.

Just because an app runs in OS X doesn't mean it's automatically Cocoa - most apps ported from OS 9 to X use Carbon, which, while it can still be a task, takes nowhere near the time it would take to port to Cocoa.

You won't see any OS X app running on *ix/X anytime soon.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are proved wrong within a year. With OS X infiltrating the hardcore *ix crowd, it's only a matter of time before someone climbs the Carbon learning curve and ports some cool stuff over. I suggest you educate yourself a little on the Carbon/Cocoa difference before you go batting others down.

Re:NO (Carbon API on Unix) (1)

spearway (169040) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060407)

This would be a very cool open source project port the Carbon API to Linux or other Unixes.

Re:NO (Carbon API on Unix) (1)

Beetjebrak (545819) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060442)

Yeah great, but we still won't be able to recompile the Adobe stuff to run on x86 hardware instead of PowerPC. As an avid Adobe user due to lack of alternatives I'm not going to hold my breath until FreeBSD runs Photoshop natively. I'd rather have a Mac with OSX running most of my current FreeBSD apps AND proprietary Adobe/M$ apps. I could even install Linux onto my future Mac if I wanted to, but frankly I don't see any reason to do so.
As far as I'm concerned, Apple has a major winner on its hands here and I, for one, will certainly move to the Mac platform ASAP when my graphics apps have all been ported properly. My current x86 servers are running FreeBSD+Samba, it won't take much work to put Netatalk on there instead. Now if only I had enough cash to spend...

Re:NO (Carbon API on Unix) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060585)

There was a post on the discuss-gnustep@gnu.org m,ailinglist about such a project not long ago. I think he was going to call it "Graphite".

Re:NO (1)

angelo (21182) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060441)

Just because an app runs in OS X doesn't mean it's automatically Cocoa - most apps ported from OS 9 to X use Carbon, which, while it can still be a task, takes nowhere near the time it would take to port to Cocoa.

When they refer to Photoshop as native OS X, they do indeed mean Cocoa. Cocoa apps are completely native. Adobe could have carbonised the Photoshop app, but they would have done so months ago if that were the case.

Not quite (5, Informative)

stux (1934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060516)

having played with PS betas, I'm pretty confident in saying that Adobe Photoshop 7 for OSX is a Carbon application.

All this means is that its linked to the Carbonlib (think share library)

rather than the Cocoa frameworks.

They're both native, its just that Cocoa apps get more features for free from the OS, which means they implement more of the standard OSX features.

Carbon apps can implement just as many of those features... but tend not to because it takes a lot of work to implement them (for instance, BBEdit supports the Services menu)

Photoshop will probably implement a lot of the Cocoa features even though its a Carbon app, simply because Adobe has the resources to do this (Just like Microsoft)

Another serious difference is that Cocoa can only currently be targetted via Objective C (ObjC++ too), Java and AppleScript (this is another major reason to use Carbon for Photoshop.

And thats about it.

Re:NO (1)

dair (210) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060527)

When they refer to Photoshop as native OS X, they do indeed mean Cocoa
No, they mean Carbon. A prototype Photoshop 5.0 was one of the first demos of Carbon, at 1998's WWDC.

Cocoa apps are completely native.
As are Carbon apps.

-dair

Re:NO (2, Informative)

legis (554347) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060461)

> The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa,
> which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS.

I disagree, it should be easy once the GUI-kit of GNUstep is complete which should be later on this year.

Scheduling. (1, Flamebait)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060553)

I disagree, it should be easy once the GUI-kit of GNUstep is complete which should be later on this year.

Great. Hope I can run it on HURD, which has been complete since the Reagan administration, right?

--saint

Re:weird idea maybe (1)

KH (28388) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060363)

I can't tell if this new PhotoShop is a carbon app or cocoa app from the tiny screenshot at c|Net. But assuming that it is a cocoa app, which I somewhat doubt, it may not be too difficult to port it to GNUStep. But again, I doubt anybody (Adobe or Apple) would encourage such a port.

Re:weird idea maybe (2)

sconest (188729) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060387)

I can't tell if this new PhotoShop is a carbon app or cocoa app from the tiny screenshot at c|Net.

I'd say carbon since it still runs on Mac OS9 [adobe.com]

Re:weird idea maybe (1)

SJ (13711) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060377)

No. Photoshop is a carbon application, which is based on the old Macintosh Toolbox. This is partly the reason for it's delay. Being one of the oldest apps from Adobe, it contains very significant amounts of old code. Most of which had to be re-written.

Re:weird idea maybe (1)

psyklopz (412711) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060378)

AFAIK, Adobe develops all of it's apps on it's own GUI framework. This is how they can maintain both Mac and Windows versions of Photoshop.

So really, the issue is porting the in-house GUI framework. And from my experiences with porting stuff to OS X, they're probably either using carbon or cocoa, both of which are proprietary Apple APIs.

The best chance of an easy port to Linux is probably tying in the Windows version of the Framework through WINE.

Of course, OS X is based on unix, and if you could get your hands on the source behind the carbon or cocoa APIs, things would be a lot easier.

Beautiful !!! (1, Offtopic)

roguerez (319598) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060348)

What a beautiful theme has the MacOS X page in Slashdot!!! I want all of Slashdot to be like this.

Re:Beautiful !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060467)

Apple will for sue sue us all for this!!

Re:Beautiful !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060480)

By God yes! That was the same thing I thought as soon as I saw it.

Re:Beautiful !!! -mod parent article up please! (0)

Andreas(R) (448328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060482)

I agree with you, Slashdot looks a lot smoother with the extra graphics. The new /. logo is a lot more modern looking.

It's about time that Slashdot updates its look a bit!
Please!

What OS? I dodn't catch it... (3, Funny)

Nailer (69468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060350)

Photoshop for OS X
[OS X (Apple)] Posted by michael on Sun February 24, 06:21 AM
from the brighter-colors-and-whiter-whites dept.
MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"

porting with gnustep (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060352)

Now when will we see OSX software running on Linux (and BSDs) using GNUstep? Shouldn't be too hard, right?

Re:porting with gnustep (1)

SJ (13711) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060383)

I am pretty sure GNUStep is WAY out of date with Cocoa. I don't think it would be an easy task to update it either.

Don't for though, most "Mac" applications are coming across as Carbon, which means they will only run under MacOS X.

Re:porting with gnustep (2, Informative)

legis (554347) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060476)

> I am pretty sure GNUStep is WAY out of date with Cocoa. I don't think it would be an easy task to update it either.

No, GNUstep actually follows the Cocoa API very closely. One of its goals is easy porting of Cocoa and GNUstep apps.

macs suck (-1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060354)

and they are not even good at that

Perfect... (1, Funny)

Cyclopedian (163375) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060360)

Now I can combine cron jobs to download pr0n and clean them up on photoshop while I sleep in the wee hours of the morning.

Man, I tickle at the thought of starting Photoshop from the command line. =)

-Cyc

Re:Perfect... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060381)

Man, I tickle at the thought of starting Photoshop from the command line. =) You can already do it- run "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop 5.0\Photoshp.exe"

Eh Eh, you cant (1)

skymester (323871) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060468)

Unfortunately you cant run GUI apps from the Terminal in OS X as you can run X11 clients on another unixish system. Ok, maybe it is possible, but not in the simple was.

So, this is only possible with windows right now.

Re:Eh Eh, you cant (1)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060495)

Actually it's quite easy using the "open" command:

open /Applications/iTunes.app

would start iTunes for example. Another nice use for "open" is that you can give a file as the argument, and it will start your preferred handler for that file type and display it. So if you said "open file.pdf" it would show you the file in Acrobat. Much handier sometimes than mousing over to a Finder window.

Re:Eh Eh, you cant (2, Informative)

moof1138 (215921) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060521)

You cannot "run" them directly from the Terminal, but there are a few tricks that you can use to control them from the Terminal a little less directly. As was mentioned above you can use the 'open' command to launch a GUI app. Beyond that if the app is scriptable to do what you want you can use 'osascript' and its brethren to execute AppleScript commands for the command line (making it possible to use shell/Perl scripts to automate functions of GUI apps). 'apropos osa' will find you all the relevant commands, which have man pages. Photoshop in the past was very scriptable, so as long as they have maintained this, you should be able to write shell and perl scripts that take advantage of this, or fire off oneliners in the shell. Since you are using a shell command to execute an applescript it might be a little more complicated in a oneliner than just selecting something from a menu or clicking a button or two. But automating a task in a script could be more worthwhile since you can perform repetitive tasks.

Re:Eh Eh, you cant (1)

stux (1934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060522)

"open /Applications/SomeGuiApp.app"

Seen it (1, Redundant)

Mattygfunk (517948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060361)

At Macworld Expo during Steve Jobs' keynote presentation, Adobe had a copy of Photoshop running on OS X. Looked pretty cool.

No release date yet unfortunately except that it will be available in the first half of this year.

to clear up some misconceptions (2, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060362)

just b/c it's ported to os x, doesn't mean you can automatically port it to linux, or any other variant. photoshop 7 will be run on top of aqua, which in turn runs on top of darwin, among other things. apple has a great explination on their http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/ [apple.com] os x site. in neat aquazied-graphics even.

porting photoshop 7 to linux/KDE/ect would be about as easy as porting age of empires w/o wine. did i miss anything? i hope that clears up alot of porting questions

Re:to clear up some misconceptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060371)

All your port are belong to us!

It's a great application (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060370)

I've played with it at work for about 15 minutes, they beta test, and it's easily as good as inn OS 9. They get an A.

wonderful... (0, Flamebait)

Cipher13 (229685) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060374)

One more proprietary app down. How many more to go?

I hardly think this is the point.

Sure, PS7 will be available for OSX - availability isn't the problem, suckage is.

Is it gonna suck? THAT's the point. This will be the definitive test for Aqua; I for one don't see Aqua standing up to it.

One things for damn sure, if Apple doesn't fix the mousing in OSX, nobody's going to even ATTEMPT to do grapics work at any resolution greater than 1024*768.

Re:wonderful... (1)

mstrjon32 (542309) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060403)

Aqua is the colorful interface that Mac OS X has. That has nothing to do with Photoshop. I think what you are referring to is Quartz; Apples new display package to replace the aging Quickdraw. Quartz is Apple's most advanced graphics engine ever and I think it should be up to the task. If it and OpenGL can handle Maya, I would think Photoshop would be a breeze.

What is wrong with Apple's mouse handling? It works the same for me in X as it did in 9. Granted after I replaced my Apple mouse with a logitech cordless I lost a little resolution, but it still works fine.

other neat features (3, Funny)

mashy (135839) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060379)


besides being OS X native, photoshop 7's text engine is gonna have spell check! whoo hoo!


<offtopic> just love the aqua-like slashdot logo on apple.slashdot.org</offtopic>

Re:other neat features (1)

mirabilos (219607) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060519)

Try to persuade CmdrTaco to post news
using Photoshop instead of $browser

...and there was much rejoicing. (5, Interesting)

solios (53048) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060382)

I use computers for one thing only: content creation. This includes Photoshop, After Effects, Dreamweaver, Fireworks... essentially, media creation and manipulation. I've tried every toy I can get my hands on, and have come to the conclusion that what works best for me is the Adobe and Macromedia suites on a Macintosh.

UNIX/Linux/BSD is neato, but I failed math, suck at logic, and can't grep to save my life. I'd like to play around with it and learn it, but I have no real reason to- and my experience with Free Software has been pretty nasty- I bitch about nonexistant intallers, suck-ass window managers, poor hardware support, and I'm told "FIX IT YOURSELF!"... and as a non programmer, I'd rather stick with something that already works for me to begin with.

Apple has brought UNIX to the desktop. Now I can run all of my happy fun day to day tasks and learn the bash (well, ZSH), discover the joys of suing to root and doing a kill 0 to see what happens, and generally have the best of both worlds. I see this as being rather relevant, really- if the company known for making "idiot friendly" machines can make UNIX useable for an idiot (or those of us that know a few lines of HTML, Lingo and BASIC)...and the companies that support that company port their apps.... then what the hell is keeping the rest of the world from following suit? Hmm?

Hell. With OS X, I can run Apache, X-11 apps, Gimp, Photoshop, Maya, Combustion, Quake.... dear gods, it can do absolutely EVERYTHING I NEED. I only need to run ONE OS for all of my art geek and computer geek needs. Hot damn. THAT is relevant.

Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (-1, Flamebait)

Paradoxish (545066) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060509)

Disclaimer: This isn't a troll or anything like that, it's just how I feel. ---- When is Apple going to give me a reason to switch? I'm being 100% honest when I say that I truly cannot understand what's so great about Macs. My job almost exclusively involves content creation, mostly in the form of graphics-for-the-web design and a bit of back-end programming. I use a windows machine for graphic work and a linux box for programming. The people I work with think I'm insane, yet my work comes out as good (if not better) as theres. I've yet to experience one reason that I should switch to a Mac, yet I'm constantly told that Macs are best for contention creation. What's the point? Despite having bunches of computers at my house (and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac) there are only two I use regularly: One is a Linux "server" that I use to test things and my "desktop" boots between Win2k, WinXP, and Linux. I've never once seen an application on a Mac that I wanted that wasn't either ported from the PC (and therefor is available to me) or that was ported to the PC (and is also available to me). So what'st he point? To make things worse I can't stand the thought of not being able to build my own computer. I'm spoiled - I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in. And while this post is probably going to get modded down for being off-topic, it's simply a response to the above post. Again - what's the point?

P.s. - why is this story even slashdot worthy?

Contention. (4, Funny)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060559)

I'm constantly told that Macs are best for contention creation

Meaning that mentioning Macs is the best way to start a flame war?

Typo, or clever pun? You be the judge.

--saint

Re:...and there was much rejoicing. (4, Interesting)

SteveM (11242) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060599)

Again - what's the point?

The point is the right tool for the job.

As you clearly point out in your post, "... I like being able to choose my own processor and motherboard and then the case I want to put it in...", you have a much higher comfort level with computer technology then does Solios.

Thus the right tool is a Mac because that is what works for him/her.

It is not clear if you have ever used a Mac for any length of time. And your comment, "... and I'm proud to say not one is a Mac ..." makes clear your anti-Mac bias. So despite claims to the contrary it would appear that you avoid Macs not because you don't see the point but because you don't like Macs.

I don't know how many computers there are in a bunch. I have four on my home network. Two Macs and two PCs. I run Mac OS (9 and X) apps, Linux apps, Windows apps, Darwin apps, and even the occasional Palm app (via an emulator).

My prefered system is my TiBook running OS X which also allows me to run OS 9 and Darwin apps. I've installed VPC on it and can run Windows apps as well (albeit slowly).

For me the TiBook is the right tool for the job. And as I said above, that is the point.

Steve M

Good New (1)

Influencial (514235) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060394)

This is very good news for apple, without Adobe support a large core of professionals will not take up Mac OS X, which imho has the ability to do very very well.

Re:Good New (0)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060419)

without Adobe support a large core of professionals will not take up

Just remember that Adobe was the company that sued Sklyarov and is actively participating in locking down the books of the future in the name of the intellectual "property". I will blame it partially on Adobe when I am seen as a criminal if I loan a book to my friend. Also PDF is still a proprietary format.

Why hurry? (1, Troll)

puckhead (241973) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060413)

I can't imagine that software companys that sell to the wintel world are in a hurry to release more products for Apple users. The people who use Apple products will wait. They're used to it.

Re:Why hurry? (3, Informative)

Beetjebrak (545819) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060458)

Adobe's market is HUGE in the apple section, the Wintel market for their products pales in comparison. Practically every publishing shop in the world runs on Apple hardware using Adobe and Quark apps. So yes they're in a hurry. It's their biggest market.

Re:Why hurry? (1)

puckhead (241973) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060499)

The newest figure I found was for 1998. Wintel %58 of sales and rising.

More in-depth view at MacCentral (5, Informative)

JimRay (6620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060414)

MacCentral [macworld.com] is running a much more in-depth article [macworld.com] , complete with screenshots you can actually see. Also included are a hands-on review and some intelligent commentary missing from the very PC-centric C|Net.

Macromedia & OSX (5, Informative)

Brento (26177) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060432)

will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"

I bet you'll see a press release from Macromedia soon, but that'll be it for a while. They're behind schedule releasing Dreamweaver 5 and Ultradev 5, which is rumored to support dot-Net, and they've gotten to the point where they're just putting out open-ended Microsoft-style vaporware press releases [macromedia.com] instead.

Not to disrespect Mac folks, but I bet the profit involved in putting out Ultradev 5 with dot-Net authoring will result in a lot more sales than Dreamweaver in native OSX, but of course, that's just my betting. Then again, maybe this is the reason DW/UD5 is so behind schedule - maybe they're trying to release everything at once, including native OSX support and dot-Net authoring. I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't accept anything less when this thing finally comes out.

Another Dead end (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060454)

Great management decision. Hey lets port our software to an OS that has limited appeal, limited sales potential and possibility cause us financial problems in the future with upgrades. Great job photoshop.

Re:Another Dead end (1, Flamebait)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060528)

Who the hell modded this flamebait "interesting"?

The Mac *rules* the design world. Every Mac client I have is chomping at the bit for OS X native versions of all their heavy-hitter apps, so they can switch. Limited appeal, my ass! A very sizable chunk of Adobe's revenue comes from their Mac applications-- probably around 35-45%. From a platform that has 5% market share. That's nothing to sneeze at.

~Philly

Macromedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060475)

Before we slam Macromedia:
They released their vector Illustration App: Freehand (IMHO: a better competitor to Adobe's Illustrator) native on OSX, months ago.

Re:Macromedia (1)

skribble (98873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060562)

I have both Adobe Illustrator aand Macromedia Freehand for OS X. While Freehand may have been first, it absolutly sucks compared to Illustrator. FWIW, Until recently I actually prefered Freehand, but Freehand for OS X is so bad it's unforgivable.

It screams ... (5, Informative)

d0n quix0te (304783) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060479)

It is bloody fast on OS X. Beats the hell out of OS 9 as far as speed is concerned. And of course it toasts the XP version by a large margin. Expect Steve to do a OS 9/ OS X/ XP bake-off at MacWorld Tokyo.

Looks like the threading model and the new disk drivers have made a huge difference.. And of course better memory management

Here's a snippet from another BB.


Anyhow, I recently had made available to me a 'future copy' of PS running on X natively. The 'carbon' version that comes after 6.0. I have been using PS 6 on XP and thought things were slower so i did some testing. If you are interested in the results, here they are:

The systems:

The Mac-
OSX 10.1.3
PowerMac G4 'Sawtooth' 533 Dual Proc.
768MB PC133, 40GB DiamondMax 7200rpm
nVidia GF2 MX w/32mb

The PC
Win XP
Athlon XP 1800+
512MB 266DDR, 40GB DiamondMax 7200rpm
GF3 Ti200 w/64MB DDR
(the GF3 is overclocked and runs @ Ti500 speeds)

Photoshop tests

MacAddict actions and 15mb Steve Jobs.tiff from the 03/98 Mag cd

results:

Beige G3/266: 2min 48sec (reference from Mag)

PS 6.0 -- Win XP: 36.5 seconds
PS 6.0 -- Classic 9.2.2 24.5 seconds
PS 7.0b -- OSX 10.1.3 12.5 seconds

I am gonna be running more items in other programs, but i could not believe the result and the difference.

....

This isn't scientific test, of course. FWIW

Re:It screams ... (3, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060598)

Here we go again. With this new release the Mac people are going to be once again touting the same old obscure algorithm in Photoshop that is custom tuned for the bizzare custom coprocessing unit in their 12MHz processors. They will try to extrapolate that to the general case to prove that Macs are always faster than PCs.

PC users know better though. The truth is that the only valid metric of computer performance is Quake III frames per second. :-)

Macromedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060493)

Flash 6 MX for OS X is due to be announced Very Soon Now (R)... probably about a month. From what I've seen, the beta is quite stable.

-ac.2063

Someone tell me... (1)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060502)

I use Gimp, and I've got it running on OS X at the moment.

I'm not trying to be an idiot, but I've never used Photoshop. Ever. Just never had a need to. When I was running Linux and I finally had to do some graphics tweaking, Gimp was right there.

So if I were to consider Photoshop, what would it give me over Gimp?

Re:Someone tell me... (2)

RussGarrett (90459) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060529)

One word: Plugins.

There's very little that distinguishes the base image-editing capability of Photoshop ($600) from Paint Shop Pro ($99) and the GIMP ($0). The main differences being good CYMK and colour-matching support (and, personally, I find the GIMP's interface an absolute pain to use).

The range [procreate.com] of [alienskin.com] different [autofx.com] Photoshop plugins is what makes it what it is, and nobody's managed to beat it yet.

Re:Someone tell me... (1)

mrm677 (456727) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060543)

The little things in Photoshop make the difference. For example, Photoshop has a filter called "Remove Dust & Scratches". I'm doing photo restoration for my family pictures. That filter is absolutely amazing. Nothing compares in the Gimp. Sure, anything is possible using the Gimp, however with Photoshop, it just takes 5 seconds as compared to 30 minutes to remove scratches cleanly.

Pantone (3, Informative)

paugq (443696) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060566)

Pantone is one of the things Gimp will NEVER have. Pantone is a patented technology and requires the Gimp community to pay them $$$ if they want to implement it.

Re:Someone tell me... (5, Informative)

marmoset (3738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060569)

So if I were to consider Photoshop, what would it give me over Gimp?


1. Live CMYK editing (essential for real-world print publishing)

2. Font handling well beyond anything available within XFree86

3. Tight integration with tools like Illustrator (e.g. being able to specify vector masks using Illustrator's sophisticated Bezier tools and use them directly in Photoshop) and inDesign.

4. Peerless Postscript/PDF integration (i.e. produce Postscript that will actually rip on a professional imagesetter and produce usable output on the first try, instead of wasting hundreds/thousands of bucks on trial and error while your client stands around angrily looking at their watch)

5. Best of breed built-in algorithms for things like scaling, color correction, etc.

6. Polish.

I've used the Gimp, and I'm impressed by what it can do, but in a past life I also worked in a graphic arts shop, and I cannot stress enough the importance of some of the above items (particularly 1 and 4) in real-world paying applications.

If all you're doing is touching up vacation snaps, then Photoshop's big pricetag probably isn't worth it to you, but if you're trying to make a living pushing pixels, no other app comes close, and the Gimp (as cool as it is) isn't even in the ballpark.

Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (-1, Troll)

fanatic (86657) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060532)

Adobe are swine. Their subsequent backpedaling doesn't absolve them for what they did to Dmitry, or the black eye they helped give the US (though Congress and Clinton bear the main guilt on this one). If there's an alternative, use it.

Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (2)

jedrek (79264) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060574)

Well... there is no alternative. Really, there isn't.

Re:Don't forget Dmitry Skylarov (2)

fanatic (86657) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060581)

Well... there is no alternative. Really, there isn't.

Ouch. Well, I don't know that field, so if you say so....

LORD OF THE KNOBS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060533)

Three Rings for the Elven-gimps under the whip, Seven for the Gaylords in their halls of fudge, Nine for Mortal Puffs doomed to wank men, One for the Dark GayLord on his dark boyfriend In the Land of Shitstab where the Gayness lies. One Ring to wank them all, One Ring to cum them, One Ring to stab them all and in the darkness rape them In the Land of Shitstab where the Gayness lies. He paused, and then said in a deep voice, "This is the Master-Knob, the One knob to wank them all. This is the One knob lost many years ago, to the great weakening of its master's power. Now, he greatly desires to have it up the arse again, - but he must NOT have it!"

www.utgib.tk

Upcoming. (2)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060535)

Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop

It's been upcoming for months. I'll believe it when I can get my mitts on a copy from the Apple Store.

Of course, the way things are going, I'll be able to get that new G4 Amiga first.

--saint

Why bother at all for 2% of the globe ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060544)


Its a wonder Adobe make any software at all when they are only servicing a computer that has less than 2% of the total PC market

Adobe vs. Corel (2)

InsaneCreator (209742) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060573)

Why is it such a big news that Adobe finally decided to write a native version of Photoshop for OSX, but noone ever mentioned that Corel's Draw and PhotoPaint have been available for OSX quite some time now. Doesn't anyone use them any more or is everyone preocupied with Gimp vs. Photoshop flamewar?

Why did it take so long? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3060582)

I was just looking at the feature set of the new Photoshop 7 for OSX on adobe's site. I didn't really see anything too groundbreaking there, maybe it will really help some people. It is as follows:

  • File Browser to visually browse and retrieve images
  • Healing Brush to effortlessly remove artifacts such as dust, scratches, blemishes, and wrinkles while preserving shading, lighting, and texture
  • Web output enhancements to easily apply transparency or partial transparency to Web page elements, including seamless edges that blend into any Web background
  • Single, enhanced Rollover palette to manage Web page rollovers, animations, and image maps more easily
  • New "selected" rollover state for creating more sophisticated Web site navigation bars without hand-coding
  • Customizable workspace for saving the arrangement of palettes and settings for tools, and instant access to a personalized Photoshop desktop
  • New Auto Color Command for reliable color correction
  • New Painting Engine to simulate traditional painting techniques
  • Pattern Maker plug-in to create realistic or abstract patterns such as grass, rocks, and sand simply by selecting a section of an image
  • Enhanced Liquify (distorting) tool to allow you to view other layers, zoom, pan, and undo multiple steps -- even save custom meshes and apply them to other files


I don't know about the rest of the community, but while these features will be nice (I guess) the feature I REALLY wanted was running natively on OSX. And that has taken some time for Adobe to deliver.

When OSX came out, everyone asked "Great, when do we get Photoshop to run natively" Adobe's response was "We're not going to change our software release schedule, just because Apple has released a new OS."

Which from a business perspective seems a little weird, why not do a OSX port and charge people for it. There would be no shortage of customers willing to pay.

They chose not to. Ok fine but it seems like quite a long time ago, especially since a year ago, (don't remember, maybe it was 2 years ago) they showed an alpha version of PS 6 running at WWDC, that had been ported to OSX by one of the project managers. One person! And a self-admitted "average" coder. Said it took him a couple of weekends.

I can only guess that there was a heck of a lot of more work to do to create a good carbon app than Apple and Adobe originally led us to believe. Or maybe an earlire release just didn't fit Adobe's financial schedule.

Also of note. Lately Adobe has gotten in this bad habit of "announcing" new software, but not actually having it available, and then slipping on that date as well. See Adobe GoLive as an example. All kinds of press about it's release, a lot of users thinking its available for immediate purchase and use. Not the case though, still not shipping yet. Hopefully Photoshop will not take a similar course. They are saying April as of now.

What about TIFFany (3, Informative)

skribble (98873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3060584)

Caffine Software [caffeinesoft.com] sells TIFFany which very well could be every bit as good as Photoshop. This is actually a cocoa app that was originally designed for OpenStep. On the plus side it's very powerful and very different. On the minus side it's pretty expensive (They really should offer a $149 competitive upgrade from Photoshop!) and it's very different.


Anyway... I'll probably end up with Photoshop (I've been using it since Version 2.5). But there are options for OS X. (And I'm sorry, but GIMP is not an option for professional photo editing... It's a step above most graphics software, but it's not Photoshop or TIFFany. (I actually think people who use and like GIMP on OS X should really download TIFFany3 Trial, I think they'll be pleasantly supprised).

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...