Adobe says no way to Vista updates

Having ported software to Vista, I can understand how hard it would be to port a huge app like Photoshop to Vista. The Vista security model is totally screwy, and there isn't much developer-friendly documentation from Microsoft. Most of the helpful docs are sprinkled around at small web sites. Ugh.

So, as a developer with an eye on Vista, could you point me to some summary (perhaps at one of the aforementioned "small web sites") of what effect Vista's security model will have on my stuff? I understand that Vista makes the wall between admins and Joe User accounts a bit higher, but IMHO most people who require admin privs to run their software are doing something wrong in their own designs, unless you're doing something very low-level with the OS like CD burning or talking directly to the graphics accelerator.

I'm not trying to say that *all* software that needs admin rights is poorly written, but boy, there sure is a lot of abuse, and if Vista cuts back on that, I say more power to 'em.

"I can understand how hard it would be to port a huge app like Photoshop to Vista"
Yeah, but they had more than a year to work on it, and they were going to need to do it anyway for the next versions. Adobe is just being arrogant and showing they don't care about their customers.

I can understand not back-porting older versions, but to not support currently shipping products and telling customers "TS, buy an upgrade" is pretty arrogant.

CS3 will NOT be 'out' next week, it will be 'announced' next week.

The products will be available at a later date in Spring 2007.

From:
http://blogs.adobe.com/creativesolutionspr/2007/03/adobe_creative_suite_3_to_be_a_1.html

Quote: "We are announcing Creative Suite 3 on March 27th. However, the software will not ship until later in Spring 2007."

This headline is incorrect.

Some existing Adobe tools have already received free updaters to run normally atop the new OS. Some will have larger changes and be in future versions of the tools, but not backports to fix old apps under new OS. Depends on the tool, the required changes for the new OS, where each is in its engineering cycle, and the nature of the code changes between versions.

This document has provided best guidance, product by product by product:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2007/02/vista_support_f.cfm

"Kuralj" is right... Adobe took the unusual step of announcing the announcement date... expected ship dates for various packages are exected to be known March 27.

jd/adobe

Adobe has (more or less) a monopoly on this market. They can do whatever they want, and we'll still buy their products.

Any other products out there to recommend?

Paint.NET was cool...

Yet another reason to get a Mac, or you could purchase Vista, probably a new PC to run Vista, CS3 and most likely not really be any further ahead...

http://www.switchingtomac.com/

Why is this news? Adobe didn't release interim updates to make their software work better under OS X, or OS X on Intel. It is just the way they do business.

That's *NO* reason to get a Mac at all. If you buy an intel Mac now and buy Adobe CS 2 for it, it won't run natively, but be emulated in Rosetta. And it's the same thing there: No universal-binary patches for CS 2. Have to buy CS 3 as well. Same thing. It's an Adobe problem, not a Vista problem.

(That said: I'm a Mac user, and yes you SHOULD switch. For other reasons.)

This should indicate to most people that updating to Vista is an expensive affair.

You can't expect Adobe to ship free updates when they have to redesign their product due to changes outside of their control. That microsoft determines to screw other companies (in this case Adobe), should not be counted against Adobe, but microsoft.

Adobe made the decision not to work on backward compatiblility for older products so they could concentrate developer efforts on the feature sets of new versions. And...their updated versions come out like clockwork with a bevy of new features. Their upgrade charges are pretty reasonable, so I really don't understand the complaints.

I would think that the purchase price of the new Photoshop Suite (for PC) would be significantly less that buying a Mac - and then having to buy a Mac version of Photoshop. Unless you are able to use your Windows licence on a Mac. In any case, it would still be less expensive to just get the new Photoshop Suite.

This is BS. It's yet another attempt by Adobe to screw their customers out of more money. I'll stick with my pirated copy of photoshop and windows xp i guess.

I can't believe how much Microsoft screwed up this time. I've been tracking the Vista snafu at http://www.jeremyduffy.com/category/windows/ and it's just amazing how much I'm really thinking about buying a Mac all of a sudden.

I work for Microsoft. He is my AIM if you want to discuss this issue further: HomicideGirL09

not to talk down OSX, Macs are great, but why bother with a whole new system, check out Ubuntu Linux... its free, the apps are free, its stables, and runs smoothly on the desktop environment. I switched about a month ago having never used Linux before, and the install was quicker and less painful than that of any Windows install I've ever done(Win ME - XP) I do minor photo editing, record music, edit HTML, all with free, stable open source software now... and i dont ever need to restart after i install an app like i did in windoze either... Its atleast worth looking into

Photoshop CS2 works PERFECTLY on Vista.
WTF ?

all these nerds have joined hands together to screw us consumers. same as in TCPA, they kiss ass with each other to see that only amrican corporate bastards get benefits and consumers have to fall on the feet of these merciless morons. Microsoft and adobe have joined hands.they even want to kill OSS.
And All those who are from NA, what about us, we cant buy a Mac . I am from India, we dont get MAC here. its easy for americans. and i am the guy now who doesnt want to support Piracy and buy orginal stuff.

Alternatives to Adobe programs? Check out osalt.com for a decent list of alternatives.

Personally I'm quite a fan of the GIMP (once you get past the UI changes) and Inkscape as alternatives to Photoshop and Illustrator respectively. And they're free ;)

I love how all the mac users are saying "switch to mac" when Adobe doesn't even have native binary support for the Intel macs. Keep in mind they have been out for over a year longer than Vista. To run adobe apps - they have to go through Rosetta
"emulation" which is PAINFULLY slow and certainly not bug-free.

Adobe says when native binary support comes out for Intel macs it will be in the form on a new product - just like their Vista lineup. So what's the difference? You want people to switch to mac so they can run Photoshop in emulated mode on mac?

I run Dreamweaver and Photoshop on Vista with no problems - and it's a great deal faster than on my mac that cost me $1000 more.