Adobe says: CS3 not fully tested for Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard"

[fryke]

WTF?! Sorry, but I can't say it much differently. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=3201 ... Apparently, Adobe is, by now, so far from being a "good citizen" on Mac OS X that they'll start testing only _after_ Apple has finished the OS..? Or has 10.5 been such a moving target for developers? I dunno, but I think I don't like the sound of this. At all.

 

[icemanjc]

I used to like Adobe!!!!!! The only reason why there still here is because of macs, they took off because of macs and not windows!!!! Screw windows.......

 

[MisterMe]

... Or has 10.5 been such a moving target for developers? I dunno, but I think I don't like the sound of this. At all.

If I said it once, I said it a thousand times: "Adobe is a very mercurial company." For more than a decade now, Adobe's mantra has been "We don't do compatibility upgrades." In the meantime, its applications--the ones that I buy, anyway--look more and more like bloated Windows ports.

 

[ksv]

My hope is that Apple is working on a Photoshop competitor.

It doesn't seem that unlikely from a technical perspective given the large number of frameworks Apple have developed for their pro apps and iWork/iLife suite.

 

[Thank The Cheese]

My hope is that Apple is working on a Photoshop competitor.

It doesn't seem that unlikely from a technical perspective given the large number of frameworks Apple have developed for their pro apps and iWork/iLife suite.

I agree, definately a possibility. And even if not apple, we really need another company giving Adobe some decent competition (you know, like Macromedia...before it was bought by someone.....). Competition is so great for softwware development and innovation -- Photoshop especially is too big at the moment.

There is Pixelmator, which is on the lower end, but still holds promise long term to be a viable alternative. I'm using the beta at the moment and love it. The interface is beautiful, and you can tell it doesn't have decades of legacy code weighing it down like Photoshop does.my only complaint with pixelmator is too many floating palettes. I can't stand floating palettes.

 

[Mikuro]

Well, I'm sure CS4 will be compatible with Leopard. What's another $650 between friends?

I think Adobe is worried that if it weren't for forced compatibility upgrades, nobody would buy the new versions. CS3 is really not a killer upgrade, but when the alternative is CS2 running in emulation, it doesn't need to be.....

 

[fryke]

Well, they're not postponing Leo-compatibility to CS4, they're just saying they'll release updates *if* problems arise. What I find disturbing is that this sounds as if they'd quit their ADC membership and had no access to Leo until it's final. *IF* they make a statement today, it should read something like "there are minor problems with this or that application in Leopard, but we'll release an update the day Leopard is released or a week after that". Actually, I'd like them to release the update a week _before_ Leo's release, of course.

 

[Tommo]

To play Devil's Advocate here, why is this entirely Adobe's fault. I agree with most of the comments regarding them here, but this issue is not just one that affects them. Backwards compatibility is an alien concept to Apple as far as it's OS is concerned and that is not just a problem for developers.

When they moved to 10.4 I had two current scientific applications fail to work with the new OS, This would have been fine if I could have stayed with OS 10.3, but as I had to buy a new Mac that was not an option.

While appreciating that backward compatibility with an application should not be necessary for applications that have not been updated since 10.2 in this case we are talking about the most recent version of an application. For goodness sake even Microsoft can get compatibility right.

 

[fryke]

If you look at Apple's documentation for developers, it was clear for a _long_ time that 10.3.9 and 10.4 would form the basis for further compatibility. Those scientific apps' creators just didn't read or react in time.

 

[Qion]

If the day I install Leopard is the day my annoyingly high-priced "suite" stops working, I'm probably going to be mildly peeved.

ALSO. Adobe is a large company with vast enough resources to beta test, for god's sake. Don't make ME wait, even if it's a couple days of incompatibility. If they force an upgrade, I will be looking hard for alterative applications.

Just sayin'...

(Not that I don't realize where the design world is at... I just really want Adobe to get some direct competition from somebody else, preferably Apple.)

 

[Tommo]

But that was the problem, it worked fine under 10.3.9 just not 10.4. This would not have been an issue if I could have continued to use 10.3. I accept that is not possible on the newer Intel based Macs, but this was a G5.

Also why should Developers have to keep patching products just to get them to work on changes in OS that occur every 18 months or so. That is one of the reasons that most major software publishers provide a second rate service to Macs. Adobe didn't become a predominantly PC suite because designers suddenly switched to PC, it just got easier to port it to Windows.

 

[Qion]

Developers should have to patch their products if they want to stay marketable and competetive. Sadly, Adobe doesn't really need to do either of these things, seeing that desktop publishing grew up with them and Quark.

 

[Tommo]

I agree if there is an inherent problem or issue with the product. My issue with this is not that Apple have upgraded their OS and the product now doesn't work, more that if I need to replace a Mac I am forced to use the latest version and am left with an even larger bill than I need to pay.

Also I maintain a large fleet of Macs and keeping applications standard across the fleet is important for ease of support for our less experienced Mac support staff.

 

[fryke]

If they force an upgrade, I will be looking hard for alterative applications.

Again: Don't read too much into this. They've clearly stated that it would be an update to CS3, nobody's forcing you to update to CS4. (There's not even talk about that just yet. In Adobe's timeframe, CS3 has only just been introduced.) My problem with Adobe is merely that they're obviously unable or unwilling to fix any problems (they make it sound as if they didn't even _know_ how CS3 works on Leopard!) in time before Leo's release.

 

[MisterMe]

To play Devil's Advocate here, why is this entirely Adobe's fault. ...

You are confusing backward compatibility and forward compatibility. Applications written to Apple documented standards tend to be forward-compatible with Apple operating systems for years or even decades. My System 7 apps that still work under MacOS X 10.4.10/Classic are unimpeachable testament to this fact. However, it does not make sense for Apple or any other developer to release applications that are compatible with System 7. It is a choice to release apps which are compatible with MacOS X 10.3 or MacOS X 10.2. A properly coded MacOS X 10.4 app, however, can be expected to be compatible with MacOS X 10.5, MacOS X 10.6, and beyond.

 

[Qion]

Again: Don't read too much into this. They've clearly stated that it would be an update to CS3, nobody's forcing you to update to CS4. (There's not even talk about that just yet. In Adobe's timeframe, CS3 has only just been introduced.) My problem with Adobe is merely that they're obviously unable or unwilling to fix any problems (they make it sound as if they didn't even _know_ how CS3 works on Leopard!) in time before Leo's release.

Oh, I realize that. I was being angry... I've had some issues with Adobe that I haven't entirely gotten over; my opinion is bias.

 

[Lt Major Burns]

did someone mention quark?

i agree with fryke though, this does sound like adobe havent renewed their ADC subscription, and although this is worrying, to be honest, i'm starting to think apple are getting quite arrogant. (steve seems to be getting more and more power hungry again, look at all the iPhone deals in UK and germany going on, and also the iTunes/UMG thing, there's a lot of bad blood going around)