[Peter]

Fantastic Idea

Sort out your god-awful installers. WHY do I need to close my BROWSER when installing a graphics application? I'm using it, dammit! Not least to give me something to do while eons pass and your installers dawdle along.

[turtle777]

Dear Adobe:

Please bundle 2 free 21" displays with Flash. Or, you know, just design a better UI.

-t

[alligator]

Dear Adobe;

Stop making Photoshop Elements take up my whole friggin screen. There's not one application I have that needs that much space.

[- - e r i k - -]

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/08/dear_adobe.html

[calverson]

Surprised that there is nothing on the top 25 about the carbon vs cocoa, that is my biggest gripe/worry about their apps.

Other than that, though, all designers are pretty much destined to use them, and until there is something that can compete, we are stuck with paying through the ass for their products.

Makes me wonder what the relationship is between Apple and Adobe at the moment. They sure dropped the bomb on them when announcing the discontinuation of Carbon, although they did give them about 5 years warning.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by calverson 

Surprised that there is nothing on the top 25 about the carbon vs cocoa, that is my biggest gripe/worry about their apps.

Why Apple still has carbon apps as well. What does cocoa give you over carbon, other then some new UI objects in Leopard.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Why Apple still has carbon apps as well. What does cocoa give you over carbon, other then some new UI objects in Leopard.

64-bit.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Why Apple still has carbon apps as well. What does cocoa give you over carbon, other then some new UI objects in Leopard.

Auto question marks?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by railhead 

auto question marks?

zing!

Edit: **** no caps!

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

64-bit.

And what does 64-bit give you - just access to more memory.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

And what does 64-bit give you - just access to more memory.

Access to more memory is a huge advantage for some apps.

And 64-bit is faster at least on Intel 64-bit CPUs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Access to more memory is a huge advantage for some apps.

Right. Think Aperture or Lightroom.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

And what does 64-bit give you - just access to more memory.

You need 64 bit to work on documents near the 4 gigabyte mark, which is becoming more and more common these days, especially with cameras getting higher and higher res.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Why Apple still has carbon apps as well. What does cocoa give you over carbon, other then some new UI objects in Leopard.

Apple's next release of their products will most likely be in cocoa, whereas Adobe have already confirmed a carbon CS4.

In addition to more than 4GB of memory per thread, not file, which is only available with 64 bit apps, my bet is 10.6's "Grand Central" will only make use of cocoa apps.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Right. Think Aperture or Lightroom.

Aperture could definitely use it. Aperture 2 was much faster than its predecessor, but I still chose Lightroom over it. Aperture 1.0 was nearly unusable on a MBP.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Aperture could definitely use it. Aperture 2 was much faster than its predecessor, but I still chose Lightroom over it. Aperture 1.0 was nearly unusable on a MBP.

It is really a shame to see the "latest and greatest" hardware bought to its knees when using older software. When the Macbook Pro's were announced I hastily went and bought one, only to find that Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash and Office were much slower than they were on my PowerMac.

Try editing a billboard size image (roughly 3 meters by 5 meters) @ 150dpi in Photoshop CS under Rosetta. Que system fans.

[wallinbl]

Dear Adobe:

What the hell is wrong with Reader on Windows? It's an unbelievable pig and it can't even close itself properly. I'm pretty sure you owe me money for how much time I've spent fixing this POS for users.

[olePigeon]

Adobe Reader is retarded on every platform. I'd use Preview if it also wasn't retarded in opening PDF files.

[olePigeon]

I hope they can fix Outline Stroke in CS3. It's completely broken.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And 64-bit is faster at least on Intel 64-bit CPUs.

Everything I've ever read on the 64-vs.-32-bit subject claims that this depends ENTIRELY upon what you're doing.

In very many common-use cases, 64-bit processing is apparently SLOWER than 32 bits.

However, there's stuff that simply isn't possible at all with 32-bit addressing, so it's clear where it needs to go...

[Maflynn]

Exactly, people quote that they want 64-bit applications without knowing why or what the benefit of 64-bit over 32-bit apps.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Everything I've ever read on the 64-vs.-32-bit subject claims that this depends ENTIRELY upon what you're doing.

In very many common-use cases, 64-bit processing is apparently SLOWER than 32 bits.

The reason why 64 bit on Intel can be faster is because there are more registers available to it. (The x86 architecture is pretty starved on directly addressable registers.) On the other hand, 64 bit code is larger, so 64 bit apps have a larger memory footprint and can slow things down.

For common desktop applications, the most important reason to go 64 bit is to be able to address more than 4 GB of RAM (per app).

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Adobe Reader is retarded on every platform. I'd use Preview if it also wasn't retarded in opening PDF files.

Wasn’t that fixed in Leopard?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Wasn’t that fixed in Leopard?

It's faster, but it messes up forms and doesn't do auto-calculations.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's faster, but it messes up forms and doesn't do auto-calculations.

Oh, I didn’t know that. I only know that the issues with transparency and gradients seem to have been fixed (about time, too), not actually having access to the app itself.

[angelmb]

Damn Adobe, you killed FreeHand !!

Why would I have to spend twice the money if I ever want to run an english version and a spanish version of your software?, ever heard of Quark XPress ???

 

paging voodoo
paging voodoo

[analogika]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The reason why 64 bit on Intel can be faster is because there are more registers available to it. (The x86 architecture is pretty starved on directly addressable registers.) On the other hand, 64 bit code is larger, so 64 bit apps have a larger memory footprint and can slow things down.

For common desktop applications, the most important reason to go 64 bit is to be able to address more than 4 GB of RAM (per app).

Doing some more reading, it seems that 64-bit computing *is* faster on Intel because it increases the number of registers.

On the G5 however, which always had plenty of registers, the additional overhead can cause a noticeable slowdown.

Okay.

I won't pretend to really understand this stuff in depth.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Exactly, people quote that they want 64-bit applications without knowing why or what the benefit of 64-bit over 32-bit apps.

I want 256-bit. Now!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I want 256-bit. Now!

Why stop there?

512, baby.

[kikkoman]

Oh god I have to deal with Adobe crap installers everyday. Adobe get your $h!t together.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by kikkoman 

Oh god I have to deal with Adobe crap installers everyday. Adobe get your $h!t together.

The CS2 Installer for the Premium version was awesome. It'd install the software, then reboot the computer logged in as root. Yep, root.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I want 256-bit. Now!

Now you're talking - 64bit pfffft real geeks use 256-bits

[placebo1969]

Dear Adobe,
Why isn't Photoshop Elements upgraded on the PC and Mac platforms at the same time as they used to?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why stop there?

512, baby.

Let's not go overboard. No one NEEDS 512-bit.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I want 256-bit. Now!

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why stop there?

512, baby.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Now you're talking - 64bit pfffft real geeks use 256-bits

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Let's not go overboard. No one NEEDS 512-bit.

[Railroader]

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by calverson 

Its called sarcasm - look it up in the dictionary

[calverson]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Its called sarcasm - look it up in the dictionary

sarcasm |ˈsärˌkazəm|
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment.

Right.

and so was my response

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Damn Adobe, you killed FreeHand !!

Why would I have to spend twice the money if I ever want to run an english version and a spanish version of your software?, ever heard of Quark XPress ???

 

paging voodoo
paging voodoo

Oh *so* supported! (slowest response ever, I know!!)

Quark somehow managed to make their applications multi-language and Cocoa-native as well as Intel native years before Adobe.

Actually Adobe hasn't even finished all these things yet. Only one of them, since Adobe apps are Carbon and single-language.

Then they put some lame excuse on a blog and expect that to be the end of the matter. The fact is that this is just about company policy. Quark decided that they weren't going to be stuck with legacy or proprietary technology until they had painted themselves in a corner, like Adobe is doing now.

I've no doubt that Adobe has its share of apologists around here, but they can post until their fingers bleed - that won't change the fact that QUARK has shown Adobe how to code apps for the Macintosh platform.

That's akin to Microsoft showing Apple how to code an OS. Except of course that analogy hardly applies any longer, since it is hard to discern any major difference between Adobe and Microsoft these days.

I used to adore Adobe, now they are a mediocre software company living on market monopoly and former glory. I mean really, what can realistically be used instead of Photoshop?

[calverson]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I used to adore Adobe, now they are a mediocre software company living on market monopoly and former glory. I mean really, what can realistically be used instead of Photoshop?

I agree. And we will go on using PS because there is nothing else, and therefore, simply because of compatibility, we will use IL and AE and all of the other abbreviations Adobe throw at us.

And the big time designer firms will upgrade the minute the new suite is launched, and small-time freelancers (such as myself) will have to set aside some money for a couple months to upgrade, but will do so.

I have a friend who is a designer, and uses Ubuntu as his main OS. He actually does okay-ish with GIMP/Inkscape/Scribus for his DTP, but we once worked together on a project, and I had a chance to see how he does things, and I have to admit, I like PS/IL/ID a lot more!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by calverson 

sarcasm |ˈsärˌkazəm|
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment.

Right.

and so was my response