4 ms·

The article was updated to read: "No one said anything about CS3 being "not supported" on Snow Leopard. The plan, however, is not to take resources away from o

by mcav 17y ago

The article was updated to read: "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."

jonknee 17y ago
Since they claimed they will make no updates to CS3 for compatibility purposes with Snow Leopard, by my definition it won't be supported.
- hamidp 17y ago
  Since did lack of support stop anyone from finding a way to run it?
  - jonknee 17y ago
    I never said it did, but simply took issue with the fact they tried to back away from "we're not supporting it" when in reality they really aren't supporting it. I use CS3 and I'd be very surprised if it ends up being incompatible.
    - robin_reala 17y ago
      Oops, sorry. I always forget that support means different things to different people. When I wrote this title it was using support to mean ’Adobe won’t be fixing problems’, not ‘CS3 won’t work’.
m_eiman 17y ago
From the FAQ linked from the article: "Q. Will older versions of Adobe creative software—such as Adobe Creative Suite 3 or Macromedia® Studio 8 software—support Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6)? A. Older versions of Adobe creative software were not included in our testing efforts. While older Adobe and Macromedia applications may install and run on Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6), they were designed, tested, and released to the public several years before this new operating system became available. You may therefore experience a variety of installation, stability, and reliability issues for which there is no resolution. Older versions of our creative software will not be updated to support Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6)."
potatolicious 17y ago
"The plan, however, is not to take resources away from other efforts (e.g. porting Photoshop to Cocoa)" Yep, because it's not like Apple gave you a 9-year heads-up on having to port your app to Cocoa or anything. In fact, Adobe made no move towards porting until Apple took out binary-level support for 64-bit Carbon in Leopard. These guys have no excuse to complain about taking resources away. They've been practicing shoddy development for years - consistently building on top of deprecated API.
- sielskr 17y ago
  It costs you nothing to use phrases like "shoddy development". It costs Adobe many millions to port Photoshop to Cocoa.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    "It costs Adobe many millions to port Photoshop to Cocoa." Yet in the end it must be done, and the earlier you do it the cheaper it gets (both in terms of good/bad press and actual development cost). Instead of being proactive and investing in the port over several releases, they are now in the position of 11th-houring it after binary support for Carbon APIs have been removed. This isn't some idle, idealistic call for good code - deprecated API will lose binary support at some point, it's entirely on Adobe's head that this has gotten to this point at all. I've worked at companies similar to Adobe's model (e.g. professional tools, regular releases to keep the cash monies flowing), and the death march for "bullet-point-able" features is relentless. The constant mad scramble for new features to justify the release cycle, along with management's complete lack of willingness to invest in rudimentary code maintenance, results in a code base that simply becomes unwieldy over time. Obviously I do not work for Adobe, but it's most probable that their current Cocoa porting efforts will end up far more expensive than if they had start the effort much earlier, and it certainly would present a lot less frustration to their customers now.
    - 17y ago

by mcav 17y ago

jonknee 17y ago

Since they claimed they will make no updates to CS3 for compatibility purposes with Snow Leopard, by my definition it won't be supported.

hamidp 17y ago
Since did lack of support stop anyone from finding a way to run it?
- jonknee 17y ago
  I never said it did, but simply took issue with the fact they tried to back away from "we're not supporting it" when in reality they really aren't supporting it. I use CS3 and I'd be very surprised if it ends up being incompatible.
  - robin_reala 17y ago
    Oops, sorry. I always forget that support means different things to different people. When I wrote this title it was using support to mean ’Adobe won’t be fixing problems’, not ‘CS3 won’t work’.

m_eiman 17y ago

From the FAQ linked from the article: "Q. Will older versions of Adobe creative software—such as Adobe Creative Suite 3 or Macromedia® Studio 8 software—support Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6)? A. Older versions of Adobe creative software were not included in our testing efforts. While older Adobe and Macromedia applications may install and run on Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6), they were designed, tested, and released to the public several years before this new operating system became available. You may therefore experience a variety of installation, stability, and reliability issues for which there is no resolution. Older versions of our creative software will not be updated to support Mac OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6)."

potatolicious 17y ago

"The plan, however, is not to take resources away from other efforts (e.g. porting Photoshop to Cocoa)" Yep, because it's not like Apple gave you a 9-year heads-up on having to port your app to Cocoa or anything. In fact, Adobe made no move towards porting until Apple took out binary-level support for 64-bit Carbon in Leopard. These guys have no excuse to complain about taking resources away. They've been practicing shoddy development for years - consistently building on top of deprecated API.

sielskr 17y ago
It costs you nothing to use phrases like "shoddy development". It costs Adobe many millions to port Photoshop to Cocoa.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- potatolicious 17y ago
  "It costs Adobe many millions to port Photoshop to Cocoa." Yet in the end it must be done, and the earlier you do it the cheaper it gets (both in terms of good/bad press and actual development cost). Instead of being proactive and investing in the port over several releases, they are now in the position of 11th-houring it after binary support for Carbon APIs have been removed. This isn't some idle, idealistic call for good code - deprecated API will lose binary support at some point, it's entirely on Adobe's head that this has gotten to this point at all. I've worked at companies similar to Adobe's model (e.g. professional tools, regular releases to keep the cash monies flowing), and the death march for "bullet-point-able" features is relentless. The constant mad scramble for new features to justify the release cycle, along with management's complete lack of willingness to invest in rudimentary code maintenance, results in a code base that simply becomes unwieldy over time. Obviously I do not work for Adobe, but it's most probable that their current Cocoa porting efforts will end up far more expensive than if they had start the effort much earlier, and it certainly would present a lot less frustration to their customers now.
  - 17y ago