|
|
Dear Adobe
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England | San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
we don't have time to stop for gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Dear Adobe:
Please bundle 2 free 21" displays with Flash. Or, you know, just design a better UI.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
Dear Adobe;
Stop making Photoshop Elements take up my whole friggin screen. There's not one application I have that needs that much space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by railhead
auto question marks?
zing!
Edit: **** no caps!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
64-bit.
And what does 64-bit give you - just access to more memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug
Access to more memory is a huge advantage for some apps.
Right. Think Aperture or Lightroom.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Adobe Reader is retarded on every platform. I'd use Preview if it also wasn't retarded in opening PDF files.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hope they can fix Outline Stroke in CS3. It's completely broken.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Exactly, people quote that they want 64-bit applications without knowing why or what the benefit of 64-bit over 32-bit apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
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).
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Oisín
Wasn’t that fixed in Leopard?
It's faster, but it messes up forms and doesn't do auto-calculations.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
I want 256-bit. Now!
Why stop there?
512, baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh god I have to deal with Adobe crap installers everyday. Adobe get your $h!t together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
I want 256-bit. Now!
Now you're talking - 64bit pfffft real geeks use 256-bits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Dear Adobe,
Why isn't Photoshop Elements upgraded on the PC and Mac platforms at the same time as they used to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Helmling
Why stop there?
512, baby.
Let's not go overboard. No one NEEDS 512-bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by calverson
Its called sarcasm - look it up in the dictionary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Status:
Offline
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|