“Adobe next week will unveil Creative Suite 4, a new version of its media design bundle set to ship the following month with features such as enhanced options for working with 3D objects in Photoshop, new Flash document exports from within InDesign, and a new animation model for Flash,” Prince McLean reports for AppleInsider.
“The San Jose-based software developer has confirmed the package to include new versions of Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Flash Player, InDesign, Photoshop, and Soundbooth, but will also bundle minor updates to the suite’s remaining components,” McLean reports.
“People privy to private demonstrations of Creative Suite 4 say the update will generally be minor, with only a few new features tacked on to each application,” McLean reports. “‘The lack of compelling new features has been the discussion among many employees and customers that are testing the software,’ one of those people said, ‘with many relating CS4 to a maintenance release rather than a complete new version.'”
“People familiar with Adobe’s plans say the company will continue to offer multiple versions of the Creative Suite, continuing with the same suite configurations. Upgrades for the most popular suite, Design Premium, are expected to be priced at $699,” McLean reports.
Much more in the full article, including screenshots, here.
Some generic troll who makes everyone ‘Yawn’ sez:
” “Except Snow Leopard will be fully 64 bit native, with performance enhancements, and fully Intel Native with optimization for multiple processor cores and significant new technology to allow other software to more fully utilize multi core hardware.” “
“Microsoft’s been shipping all that for years, nobody cares. New icons would make more difference to every body’s daily life.”
Remarkably stoopid comment. Thus I slap ‘Yawn’ to wake him up:
I) Microsoft has sold 64 bit versions of Windows since 2005. The only folks who have wanted 64 bit Windows have been high end Enterprise users who wanted it for servers.
II) Meanwhile, Apple went ENTIRELY 64 bit as of 2003, that’s two years PREVIOUS to Microsoft, with all their G5 Macs, followed on by all the Intel Macs with the exception of the earliest Mac Mini Intel Mac. Who cared? Any professional involved in 3D rendering, video editing and large scale 2D imaging (HELLO ADOBE YOU DOPES!), among others, who could use all the RAM in their machine they could lay their hands on. 4 GB didn’t cut it.
III) Meanwhile, there has NEVER YET been a movement in the consumer Windows world to go 64 bit, despite its availability of 64 bit Windows from Microsoft. Why not?!
A) IBM derived PC hardware is STILL late to the 64 bit hardware market. Things are so incredibly stoopid in the PC hardware world that you can buy a PC with a 64 bit Intel processor, but the PC manufacturer, by saving a buck here and there, left the rest of the hardware in the box only 32 bit capable. Talk about your PC POS! This is the kind of rubbish Apple could never pull on their customers. (Not that they haven’t pulled some nasties in their time).
B) Microsoft, previous to Vista, made going 64 bit outrageously nasty. You had to give up ALL your 32 bit apps, and good luck finding native 64 bit apps. Oh, you want an example? Didn’t we just learn that Adobe won’t go 64 bit until CS4 for Windows?
C) And even in Vista, going 64 bit is nasty.
1) You can do 32 bit apps in 64 bit Vista, but they run under EMULATION. This means they run more slowly than on 32 bit Vista. And we already know how Vista is remarkably SLOWER than Windows XP when running on the same hardware.
2) Microsoft completely bollocksed up the driver situation in 64 bit Vista. If you thought the driver problem in 32 bit Vista was shocking, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
a) ALL drivers have to be rewritten to specifically be 64 bit. There is no such thing as a 32 bit driver that will work in 64 bit Windows.
b) ALL drivers for 64 bit Windows have to be signed with a certificate. I said ALL. There is no such thing as a working driver for 64 bit Windows that is not certified. All other drivers simply will not work due to 64 bit Vista’s unforgiving security structure.
c) If you want to use the OFFICIAL Microsoft “Vista Certified” Logo on your driver, the certification FEE from Microsoft starts at $250 (US) per operating system family you want signed and certified for compatibility.
Then get this: A developer gets scalped by Microsoft to get his driver OFFICIALLY certified, all for the sake of security in 64 bit Vista, and it turns out that the security measures are a waste of time. Read it and weap:
http://keznews.com/3259_Microsoft_Is_Defending_x64_Windows_Vista
To quote: “Malformed code can be injected into the x64 Vista kernel via a driver with a legitimate or a malicious certificate. Additionally, the operating system’s core can be breached through faulty drivers.”
Just give me a gun. And people use Windows? I am so glad I have much better alternatives. Stop ‘Yawn’-ing! The Windows PC world has to catch up with 64 bit one of these days! Macs have been running rings around you since 2003! And Snow Leopard continues to consolidate the quality of 64 bit Mac OS X. And ALL Mac users care. We like quality. We have quality. We want more quality. We don’t want Windows ‘quality’, thank you.
“Apple went ENTIRELY 64 bit as of 2003, that’s two years PREVIOUS to Microsoft,”
Unfortunately they didn’t release a viable 64 bit OS to match until recently, making that a moot point.
“You had to give up ALL your 32 bit apps”
Your ignorance continues to surprise. 32 bit applications run under 64 bit windows side by side with 64 bit applications, no problems. It’s only the kernel device drivers that need an update, and that’s hardly surprising. How can you be so ignorant about the subject yet still profess to have an opinion on it?
“is no such thing as a working driver for 64 bit Windows that is not certified”
And signed and certified drivers are a bad thing? It’s hard to believe you’re even trying to make that argument.
Come back later when you know something about 64 bit Windows and PC security.
And in any case, PPC Macs run 64 bit code on average 10% slower than the same 32 bit code. So if you care about performance, unless you really needed the address space, who would take that kind of hit on machines which were already very slow compared to the competition?
Ummm yeah….PPC chips arent used anymore in Macs so why are you bringing that up? And speed doesn’t equal power just like a company with more market share that doesnt care for its custumers or else it would have rewritten windows from the ground up in those six years it wasted on Vista doesn’t equal good.
“Come back later when you know something about 64 bit Windows and PC security.”
You can have all the “security measures” in the world but if it gets in the way of productivity and usability it doesn’t mean jack.
Yawn “The point remains, nobody cares or they’d all be running 64 bit windows on their 64 bit PCs, since almost every PC sold today is 64 bit capable and 64 bit desktop PCs hit the market first in 2005.”
There’s a wall between 64 bit windows and 32 bit windows. The fact that Microsoft ships “64 bit windows since 2005” is irrelevant to the fact that its not fully compatible with the 32 bit version. Which means it has a massively smaller and fractured installed base.
There’s an enormous advantage of having 32 bit and 64 bit working side by side, Windows does not have this, which means Windows is dramatically behind. And this won’t be fixed in the next Windows 7 update from what I’ve read.
You might as bell be talking about server OS as to talk about a tiny niche version of 64 bit buggy windows that no one uses. Just as relevant, they’ve had 64 bit server OS’s vastly longer than 2005.
Yawn show me some installed base numbers of 64 bit Windows, I’m curious if there’s actually anyone out there using it.
what a HUGE joke.. are they serious… $699 for fixes…. of mistakes they made with CS3 and the lack of features that CS3 SHOULD have had
$700 so file icons will work in preview.
LIAR TROLL (aka ‘Yawn’, and I do) LIED:
” “Apple went ENTIRELY 64 bit as of 2003, that’s two years PREVIOUS to Microsoft,” “
“Unfortunately they didn’t release a viable 64 bit OS to match until recently, making that a moot point.”
Trolls: Do your own homework. The above is a 100% LIE. Accompanying the G5 processor in 2003 was a 64 bit enabled version of Mac OS X that was completely capable of running all 64 bit Mac apps. It’s that simple. ‘Yawn’, you are that dishonest.
Then Yawn LIED:
” “You had to give up ALL your 32 bit apps” “
“Your ignorance continues to surprise. 32 bit applications run under 64 bit windows side by side with 64 bit applications, no problems. It’s only the kernel device drivers that need an update, and that’s hardly surprising. How can you be so ignorant about the subject yet still profess to have an opinion on it?”
The LIE here is his convenient inability to READ. I clearly provided the context that BEFORE VISTA you DID have to GIVE UP ALL YOUR 32 BIT APPS. Only in VISTA did Microsoft bother to add the 32 bit emulator, which, LIAR, you will notice I discussed at some length in my post, you LYING LIAR!
Then the LIAR LIED this LIE:
” “is no such thing as a working driver for 64 bit Windows that is not certified” “
“And signed and certified drivers are a bad thing? It’s hard to believe you’re even trying to make that argument.”
The LIE here is dropping out the context, once again: The point I obviously made is that you do NOT need certificate signed drivers in Vista 32 bit. That is one fundamental reason people stick with 32 bit Vista and IGNORE 64 bit Vista. ALL your drivers MUST have signed certificates in 64 bit Vista. NONE of your 32 bit drivers of ANY kind will work in 64 bit Vista. And not just that, the developers have to PAY to HAVE THEM SIGNED WITH CERTIFICATIONS. And if they want an ‘official’ certification, they have to PAY MICROSOFT OUT THE RECTUM. The result is a DISINCENTIVE for developers to care about 64 bit Vista. Result: Just about no one is going 64 bit Vista.
And meanwhile EVERYONE is 64 bit if they have bought ANY Mac (apart from the first Intel Mac Mini) since 2003. That’s TWO THOUSAND AND THREE. That means the Windows platform is literally 5 (that’s F I V E) years BEHIND Mac OS X.
Now go cry in a corner you worthless little moron. I just whipped your LYING little butt.
Then LYING LIAR LIED this LIE:
“Come back later when you know something about 64 bit Windows and PC security.”
I clearly know about 64 bit Mac OS X AND 64 bit Windows, AND you are a worthless little turd troll. DON’T come back later. We KNOW you are a LIAR! You LYING LIAR! You LIED!
YOU LIAR!
(***inspired by one of my favorite South Park episodes, obviously)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Minor factual correction I commonly trip over.
I sed: “And meanwhile EVERYONE is 64 bit if they have bought ANY Mac (apart from the first Intel Mac Mini) since 2003. That’s TWO THOUSAND AND THREE. That means the Windows platform is literally 5 (that’s F I V E) years BEHIND Mac OS X.”
And I should have sed: “(apart for G4 iBooks, PowerBooks and the first Intel Mac Mini).”
Such is my devoted HONESTY! HONESTLY, I am so HONEST! Have you HONESTLY seen anyone so HONESTLY HONEST!? HONESTLY!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
Minor update …
Minor updates should be free as in Bug fixes and fixing what was not coded properly the FIRST 3 TIMES.
Is Adobe greedy or what?
If they didn’t have a virtual monopoly on desktop software I’d use something else. But what?
“Yawn show me some installed base numbers of 64 bit Windows, “
Read my earlier post. The majority of desktop applications get little benefit or run slower when recompiled as a 64 bit application. Why? Pointers get longer, sizes of base types increase, instruction sizes increase, which means you’re stressing the memory subsystem harder for no benefit unless you actually have an application which can effectively use more than 4GB of memory or gets a speedup from 64 bit ints. Which is why nobody cares about 64 bit operating systems at a desktop level. One day maybe, maybe even soon, but not today.
“There’s an enormous advantage of having 32 bit and 64 bit working side by side, Windows does not have this, which means Windows is dramatically behind.”
Get some smarts. You can run 32 and 64 bit apps on 64 bit Windows.
“I clearly know about 64 bit Mac OS X AND 64 bit Windows, “
Your posts clearly show the opposite. You couldn’t have told a bigger LIE if you tried. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. you seem to HONESTLY believe you’re not LYING about your knowledge. that just makes you HONEST but IGNORANT.
I use the CS-era features all the time, and even find some of the additions in CS3 very beneficial.
I mean, if all you are doing is cropping and spinning photos, sure. But for pros? Come on! —Military Police
I love Photoshop and have been using it professionally since version 1. And I rely on CS-era features that I would not be happy to give up. But it’s a little shocking when you calculate the cost of getting from there to here. For my money, the program hasn’t improved nearly enough to justify the total cost of all those upgrades. Not by a long shot. Adobe has been sitting on their laurels for far too long.