Adobe CS5 available for trial download

[Muft]

Great news:bounce:

[SheepFactory]

The install of after fx cs5 is literally taking longer than it's download.. :(

[R10k]

The install of after fx cs5 is literally taking longer than it's download.. :(

56K download speed, or...?

[Szos]

So for those that have installed it, how's it run?
Stable? Fast? ...or is it as bad as CS4 supposedly was?

For the last couple of days, I've been watching the "What's New" videos over at creativelive.com. Very informative videos and it looks like there are some decent updates in this release.

[Mike.H]

in all honesty, cs4 was only "bad" early on. Adobe did fix the issues with a few patches.

and i havent had any showstoppers getting in the way of our projects after the initial baby kinks got sorted out.

Not to say i wont be holding off purchasing cs 5 until early adopters has had their hands on adobes latest offering for a while or the trial turns out to work flawlessly when i give it a go next week.

[PaulAdams]

Can you turn off the brush tilting on the new 'painting' brushes?

[AJ]

Had a quick chance to prat about with it today, some genuinely nice features... Not keen on the new 'zoom' method, but I'm sure I'll adapt (in about 10 years). Although one thing is annoying me, when I use Alt + Spacebar to zoom out Windows makes multiple 'chime' noises like I've held a key down too long, anyone else getting this?

[biliousfrog]

Had a quick chance to prat about with it today, some genuinely nice features... Not keen on the new 'zoom' method, but I'm sure I'll adapt (in about 10 years). Although one thing is annoying me, when I use Alt + Spacebar to zoom out Windows makes multiple 'chime' noises like I've held a key down too long, anyone else getting this?

I get that in some other apps under Win7...though not all the time. Some of the Win7 glitches seem to be easily fixed by running in Vista compatibility mode

[meleseDESIGN]

Holy s***, and this with an i7. How long did it take?
I can't even download it yet, cuz my UMTS conection is limited by 64K for the next 30 days...:D
But how is FX working with your video card? I know you have a GTX275.
Any performance improvement over CS4?

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The install of after fx cs5 is literally taking longer than it's download.. :(

[BigJay]

Anyone have this installed along side CS4? any problems? Want to try it but don't want to kill my working software to try it.

J

[BigPixolin]

The content aware healing brush is absolutely amazing on certain things. :buttrock:

[leigh]

Any performance improvement over CS4?

I've been using CS5 for ages now (I'm on the beta), and I can say that I've experienced a noticeable performance increase myself.

[SheepFactory]

Holy s***, and this with an i7. How long did it take?
I can't even download it yet, cuz my UMTS conection is limited by 64K for the next 30 days...:D
But how is FX working with your video card? I know you have a GTX275.
Any performance improvement over CS4?

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

It was just at the beginning for some reason, it gave me a "estimated time remaining 20 minutes" thing but sped up after that thank god :)


Regarding Ps cs5, it is lightyears faster than cs4 ever was. Excellent release.

[mecos]

so is photoshop the only 64bit app for mac?

[bobtronic]

so is photoshop the only 64bit app for mac?
No, there are some other, for instance CINEMA 4D and BodyPaint 3D (I think Houdini is 64bit on Mac too).

cheers,
Matthias

[mecos]

No, there are some other, for instance CINEMA 4D and BodyPaint 3D (I think Houdini is 64bit on Mac too).

cheers,
Matthias


lol. i'm sorry... i meant in adobe cs5. we've been waiting for 64bit forever and it seems like several of their apps are still not available in 64bit like illustrator and indesign.

edit: so only Photoshop, Premier, AfterEffects are running in 64bit. AWESOME Adobe! i'll just pay up and shut up.

[BigPixolin]

edit: so only Photoshop, Premier, AfterEffects are running in 64bit. AWESOME Adobe! keep up the crappy support for mac!

IMO adobe should drop Apple completely.

[mbaldwin]

IMO adobe should drop Apple completely.


I know you didn't start this, but can we keep this tripe off the boards? Stay on topic and say something that makes it worthwhile reading these threads.

thanks in advance.

[mecos]

edit: mbaldwin is right. i retract my retort.

[meleseDESIGN]

I'm sure Adobe would administer to your needs if you buy 1 mio licenses from them.
There was never a promise from Adobe that they offer 64-bit version of Illustrator and InDesign at the 30. April 2010.

Anyway, why do you need Illustrator and InDesign in 64-bit?
I'll bet you don't even really need it.
And if it did, why don't you buy Adobe Systems and run the business better?
It seems you know it all better or you don't have a clue... :rolleyes:


Now it's time for me to find a fast web connection and grab this goodies.
But let's dance into Mai first...

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif


we've been waiting for 64bit forever and it seems like several of their apps are still not available in 64bit like illustrator and indesign.

edit: so only Photoshop, Premier, AfterEffects are running in 64bit. AWESOME Adobe! keep up the crappy support for mac!

[mecos]

I'm sure Adobe would administer to your needs if you buy 1 mio licenses from them.
There was never a promise from Adobe that they offer 64-bit version of Illustrator and InDesign at the 30. April 2010.

Anyway, why do you need Illustrator and InDesign in 64-bit?
I'll bet you don't even really need it.
And if it did, why don't you buy Adobe Systems and run the business better?
It seems you know it all better or you don't have a clue... :rolleyes:


Now it's time for me to find a fast web connection and grab this goodies.
But let's dance into Mai first...

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif


and you probably don't need to make assumptions about me or what i need.
i edited my original post to remove my complaints.

[meleseDESIGN]

Yeah, cuz bashing Adobe all over the place makes much more sense, right?

:rolleyes:

and you probably don't need to make assumptions about me or what i need.
i edited my original post to remove my complaints.

[mecos]

Yeah, cuz bashing Adobe all over the place makes much more sense, right?

:rolleyes:


there is a difference. i've had a working relationship with adobe for over 10 years. i think i'm allowed to complain once in a while. on the other hand, i don't know who YOU are.

[meleseDESIGN]

Sure, if you would point your complain in the right direction.
With that said, talk to Apple about their API/Framework and then to Adobe about developing issues on OSX.

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

i think i'm allowed to complain once in a while.

[mecos]

Sure, if you would point your complain in the right direction.
With that said, talk to Apple about their API/Framework and then to Adobe about developing issues on OSX.

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

ok, thanks for your advice. i will.

[DagMX]

lol. i'm sorry... i meant in adobe cs5. we've been waiting for 64bit forever and it seems like several of their apps are still not available in 64bit like illustrator and indesign.

edit: so only Photoshop, Premier, AfterEffects are running in 64bit. AWESOME Adobe! i'll just pay up and shut up.
With Illustrator and Indesign still being 32 bit, does anyone know if they are still Carbon apps? Not that it's a huge deal, but I'm just curious if they were ported over and just aren't 32 bit enabled.

I'm pretty excited for the new Mercury engine and definitely for the new after effects tools.

[mecos]

they are all cocoa

[Szos]

I would be curious to know how 64-bits works on the Mac (versus Windows).

For instance, on a PC, you would install Win7 64 and thus you would also hope that all your apps are 64-bit versions or else they would never be able to access more than the 3.X GBs of RAM that is limited by Win32.

Unless there some huge difference that I do not know about, I definitely can see why someone would complain if Adobe was offering only some of their suite of software as 64-bit.

[DagMX]

I would be curious to know how 64-bits works on the Mac (versus Windows).

For instance, on a PC, you would install Win7 64 and thus you would also hope that all your apps are 64-bit versions or else they would never be able to access more than the 3.X GBs of RAM that is limited by Win32.

Unless there some huge difference that I do not know about, I definitely can see why someone would complain if Adobe was offering only some of their suite of software as 64-bit.
It's similar in fashion to the way Windows works. There's some RAM addressing differences in the way the kernels work but nothing too different. It's possible to have a 32 bit app that can address 64bit memory space in parts like (i think) After Effects used to do in CS4.

Another thing about OS X Snow Leopard is that it runs the 32-bit kernel by default as of right now to keep driver and kernel extension compatibility.

[ivanisavich]

After Effects CS5 doesn't work in Windows XP 64-bit.

Basically the only thing they added was 64-bit support, and in the process they prevent a huge number of users from even using it anymore without a system OS upgrade.

I officially hate Adobe.

[R10k]

Basically the only thing they added was 64-bit support, and in the process they prevent a huge number of users from even using it anymore without a system OS upgrade.

If they didn't add anything, why are you complaining? Simply don't buy it.

For the 'huge number of users' that refuse to move on from old as anything XP, and/or don't like using more memory than my mum has in her cheap Dell laptop- I'm sure they'll survive on CS4.

[Mike.H]

have to agree, progess in this aspect is only a good thing and im glad to see premium pro requiring 64bit and how much better it is then the cs4 version.

Cs5 is looking realy impressive to me so far, much better update then cs 3-cs4 was.
In my opinion that is

[meleseDESIGN]

After Effects CS4 doesn't work on Windows 95 neither. Didn't you hate Adobe since you use their software?
If you think like this then you will ever hate Adobe, cuz there is NO guarantee that your current OS will be still supported with CS6/CS7....... So, if you upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit, then you will do it for CS5 only, NOT for future versions!!!

Think about it, maybe it makes you smile then.


http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

After Effects CS5 doesn't work in Windows XP 64-bit.

Basically the only thing they added was 64-bit support, and in the process they prevent a huge number of users from even using it anymore without a system OS upgrade.

I officially hate Adobe.

[ivanisavich]

After Effects CS4 doesn't work on Windows 95 neither. Didn't you hate Adobe since you use their software?


That's a really dumb analogy.

There isn't large proponent of CS4's userbase that's using Win95, unlike the large number of XP users who use CS4. Also, Win95 is not 64-bit compatible, unlike WinXP 64-bit.

Chances are someone will find a workaround, though.

[meleseDESIGN]

I could have said CS3 and Win Me as analogy, but it makes no difference for my intention.
CS5 supports Vista and Windows 7, that's two OS. CS3 didn't support more than two neither.
What's much more important to me is that CS5 will support projects which are made with CS3/CS4.
Windows 7 costs only a few bucks more. I think the minimum system requirements for CS5 are clearly described on Adobe's website.

Just stay with your current CS4 and XP if you don't want to upgrade.
Most of the time an application upgrade is also bounded on other upgrades, such is hardware and OS.

Complaing here that XP isn't supported is out of place.

;)


That's a really dumb analogy.

There isn't large proponent of CS4's userbase that's using Win95, unlike the large number of XP users who use CS4. Also, Win95 is not 64-bit compatible, unlike WinXP 64-bit.

Chances are someone will find a workaround, though.

[DagMX]

That's a really dumb analogy.

There isn't large proponent of CS4's userbase that's using Win95, unlike the large number of XP users who use CS4. Also, Win95 is not 64-bit compatible, unlike WinXP 64-bit.

Chances are someone will find a workaround, though.
It seems to me tat you believe it is an artificial limitation rather than an actual problem with XP64.

XP64 is far less developed than both vista and windows 64 and is less related to the actual consumer windows line than both it's successors. It has limited support in comparison and it would be ridiculously hard to implement the changes to cs5 and making sure it works in xp64.

Sooner or later they were bound to drop Xp64 support and move on. legacy software bogs down everything after a certain point. If the user isn't willing to upgrade their hardware/software to keep up, then that's the users prerogative.

Do you complain that Crysis doesn't have support for the Geforce FX5500?

[ivanisavich]

I could have said CS3 and Win Me as analogy, but it makes no difference for my intention.


Well maybe your intentions wouldn't be different, but the analogy is no less flawed.

Every single version of CS has been tailored to XP except for CS5. None have been tailored for ME. This wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that nothing OS-dependent has been changed in AE's architecture except for 64-bit support, which XP64 is designed for.

And before you simply repeat yourself about Adobe deciding to stop support for older operating systems, Photoshop CS5, Dreamweaver CS5, Flash CS5, Illustrator CS5 and InDesign CS5 all offer XP64 support.


It seems to me tat you believe it is an artificial limitation rather than an actual problem with XP64.

Sooner or later they were bound to drop Xp64 support and move on.


What's the problem with XP64? Photoshop CS4 64-bit works fine in it, as well as a litany of other 64-bit industry apps like 3d Studio Max, Maya, etc. Also as mentioned above, other CS5 apps have XP support. At this point, the cutoff for AE seems arbitrary.

Oh...and having searched around for discussions about this problem on other sites, it appears as though people have already found a workaround for the AE CS5 trial so that it'll work perfectly fine on XP64. Interesting, eh ;)

[R10k]

What's the problem with XP64? Photoshop CS4 64-bit works fine in it, as well as a litany of other 64-bit industry apps like 3d Studio Max, Maya, etc. Also as mentioned above, other CS5 apps have XP support. At this point, the cutoff for AE seems arbitrary.

Adobe have made the cutoff decision for one of two reasons.

1) Someone decided it'd be a fun to annoy XP64 owners.

2) There's a technical consideration.

Oh...and having searched around for discussions about this problem on other sites, it appears as though people have already found a workaround for the AE CS5 trial so that it'll work perfectly fine on XP64. Interesting, eh

No. It may work, but then it may also be horribly unstable or result is some technical disaster later on down the track. I don't know if you've noticed this, but programs are really complicated things. I have no way of describing how silly it is to expect AE to magically work because Photoshop or Max do. I'm confident that there's a good technical reason why the Adobe devs have tried to pull the program from running under XP64.

[thatoneguy]

It may work, but then it may also be horribly unstable or result is some technical disaster later on down the track.

That described my experience with PS64bit when I was still running XP 64. One of many reasons I upgraded to Vista/Win7 x64. They actually are supported by applications.

[ivanisavich]

That described my experience with PS64bit when I was still running XP 64. One of many reasons I upgraded to Vista/Win7 x64. They actually are supported by applications.

XP64 is officially supported for both PS-64 CS4 and CS5 :)

[liltbrockie]

Well maybe your intentions wouldn't be different, but the analogy is no less flawed.

Every single version of CS has been tailored to XP except for CS5. None have been tailored for ME. This wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that nothing OS-dependent has been changed in AE's architecture except for 64-bit support, which XP64 is designed for.

And before you simply repeat yourself about Adobe deciding to stop support for older operating systems, Photoshop CS5, Dreamweaver CS5, Flash CS5, Illustrator CS5 and InDesign CS5 all offer XP64 support.



What's the problem with XP64? Photoshop CS4 64-bit works fine in it, as well as a litany of other 64-bit industry apps like 3d Studio Max, Maya, etc. Also as mentioned above, other CS5 apps have XP support. At this point, the cutoff for AE seems arbitrary.

Oh...and having searched around for discussions about this problem on other sites, it appears as though people have already found a workaround for the AE CS5 trial so that it'll work perfectly fine on XP64. Interesting, eh ;)

Why don't you upgrade to the latest version of windows though....?

[Sil3]

What's the problem with XP64? Photoshop CS4 64-bit works fine in it, as well as a litany of other 64-bit industry apps like 3d Studio Max, Maya, etc. Also as mentioned above, other CS5 apps have XP support. At this point, the cutoff for AE seems arbitrary.



Try using CS4 in Vista or W7 64 and see the clear difference in performance against XP64... it is very noticeable, why I dont know but it is... I was a happy XP64 camper for years but when I changed to W7 I cant go back. Even in Vista 64 I noticed performance differences for the better in most heavy applications and Vista was dam bloated compared to W7.

[ivanisavich]

Why don't you upgrade to the latest version of windows though....?

Mostly because I have some peripheral hardware that I share between my machines here that's not Vista or Win7 compatible (it's a bit older so there's no updated drivers...I was lucky enough to get xp64 drivers for it).

Eventually I'll have to upgrade, of course, but for now I'm still feeling pretty comfy with XP.


Try using CS4 in Vista or W7 64 and see the clear difference in performance against XP64... it is very noticeable, why I dont know but it is... I was a happy XP64 camper for years but when I changed to W7 I cant go back. Even in Vista 64 I noticed performance differences for the better in most heavy applications and Vista was dam bloated compared to W7.


Yea initially I heard of Vista's bloat so that's why I didn't upgrade. Now with windows 7 supposedly being better, I'll admit that I'm tempted...

[plastic]

Glad to see Premiere and After effects are 64bit only.
It's a shame that Photoshop still comes with a 32bit version. That means, plugin makes wont care to support 64bit.

XP needs to die already, it's ridiculous to use a 10 years old OS and still expect new stuff to run on it.

[R10k]

Eventually I'll have to upgrade, of course, but for now I'm still feeling pretty comfy with XP.

Time for the old dual boot.

Yea initially I heard of Vista's bloat so that's why I didn't upgrade.

I've been running Vista for some time now. It works great. Going to Windows 7 or 8 will be a no-brainer, when I feel the need (and can afford) to go 64bit.

[yargola]

XP needs to die already, it's ridiculous to use a 10 years old OS and still expect new stuff to run on it.

what a lame comment :hmm:
everything works on XP,as you've benn told, even parts of the cs5 suite. autodesk have killed support for XP? the foundry have killed support for XP?
the XP doesn't need to DIE, but yet it's been butchered by microsoft ever since they released vista. microsoft is trying to push a new OS, more flashy,more sells, it has nothing to do with XP being useless, or not production proven etc.. it has only to do with MONEY. it's the same as any other product that requieres updates.

just out of curiosity, can u provide the link where adobe DEV's say that they had to cut off the support for XP due to the fact that X is not properly supported on that OS?!:deal:

[R10k]

Yargola, you really should get a clue about what actually makes programs tick (and about software development in general) before making comments about what should and should work on an operating system. Seriously, it's borderline embarrassing reading what you've written.

just out of curiosity, can u provide the link where adobe DEV's say that they had to cut off the support for XP due to the fact that X is not properly supported on that OS?!

You make it sound as though X would be a feature. I'd expect X would be some pretty technical stuff... stuff I doubt Adobe would mention to the average person.

[SheepFactory]

Yea initially I heard of Vista's bloat so that's why I didn't upgrade. Now with windows 7 supposedly being better, I'll admit that I'm tempted...

Vista is pretty much the worst OS I ever used so I cant blame you for not upgrading. Win 7 is amazing in every way though and well worth upgrading as soon as you can.

[DSedov]

We're still running XP64bit here, guess from what you guys just wrote here it really IS time to get hands on W7, huh?

[DagMX]

just out of curiosity, can u provide the link where adobe DEV's say that they had to cut off the support for XP due to the fact that X is not properly supported on that OS?!:deal:

If you dig around john nack's blog I'm sure he has some links to explanations. A few reasons to move away from XP, off the top of my head, are memory addressing differences , the graphics and audio stack are quite different and there are differences in the way applications make process calls. Those are jsut a few reasons why developing applications like After effects and premiere for both XP and Vista/W7 is a very difficult, and often wasted effort.

Sure things will run on XP still. But you'll be getting less than optimal performance and stability, which Adobe and other companies are not going to account for.

We're still running XP64bit here, guess from what you guys just wrote here it really IS time to get hands on W7, huh?

In my opinion yes, but of course you'd weigh out your options. The performance increase in CS5(especially Premiere) is pretty significant. I'm on a mac, though I'm sure the performance is similarly better on windows

[yargola]

Yargola, you really should get a clue about what actually makes programs tick (and about software development in general) before making comments about what should and should work on an operating system. Seriously, it's borderline embarrassing reading what you've written.



You make it sound as though X would be a feature. I'd expect X would be some pretty technical stuff... stuff I doubt Adobe would mention to the average person.

well, i am trully sorry for the embaressment you feel when reading my comment, but you failed to enlighten me, nor did u actually gave an answer to my question... :rolleyes:

i only look at this from a consumer point of view,someone who failes to understand the REASON why adobe dropped support for that OS, if you do know better, can you tell what was "x"?! (but don't guess.. that would be "cheating" :D )

also, don't you think, that a company big as adobe should have provided some sort of an explanation to their customers, i mean changing OS, could be a big deal for some customers, i would imagine...

at the moment we are lucky that you are here to provide a vague explnation as to what the "x" factor in adobe decision... :curious:

thank you.

[meleseDESIGN]

You doesn't have to and it also doesn't have to be Windows.
Windows 7 is a bit faster as XP cuz it uses the multicore features more efficient.
But I doubt CS4 will support CS5 project data.
It's often merely a matter of time till you get confronted with incompatible issues.

;)


We're still running XP64bit here, guess from what you guys just wrote here it really IS time to get hands on W7, huh?

[yargola]

If you dig around john nack's blog I'm sure he has some links to explanations. A few reasons to move away from XP, off the top of my head, are memory addressing differences , the graphics and audio stack are quite different and there are differences in the way applications make process calls. Those are jsut a few reasons why developing applications like After effects and premiere for both XP and Vista/W7 is a very difficult, and often wasted effort.

Sure things will run on XP still. But you'll be getting less than optimal performance and stability, which Adobe and other companies are not going to account for.



In my opinion yes, but of course you'd weigh out your options. The performance increase in CS5(especially Premiere) is pretty significant. I'm on a mac, though I'm sure the performance is similarly better on windows

thanks, for your reply, i will ook up john nack's blog, for possible real answers.
i realize that this discussion here is futile,other than "just the way it is" or "I'd expect X would be some pretty technical stuff", i won't really get an answer here...

the part were u mentioned, that "is a very difficult, and often wasted effort." is not something that i would want to hear from a company like adobe, it makes them sound like microsoft, or just plain lazy...

and comparing mac to widnows is like comparing oranges to apples(no pun intended).

[BigJay]

Time for the old dual boot.



I've been running Vista for some time now. It works great. Going to Windows 7 or 8 will be a no-brainer, when I feel the need (and can afford) to go 64bit.


7 is a faster, to me anyway, version of vista. It is definitely an improvement.

[DSedov]

What I am going to write now might be off-topic (well as many posts in this thread anyways), but I always wonder why do people "search" for a reason of why company "Y" (not to be confused with "X"=) ) did "something".

As a developer in the past, I know, that especially when a company is young they try to do everything they can to please their potential user. However, when a company has a "defacto" product in some niche, why do you think they "have to" do what some one thinks they should? Adobe is an owner of Photoshop and many other products, and I think it is up to their free will to make decisions to support certain OS or not.

It is them, who produce the software, and it is their strategic thinking and decision making that tells them that - "Hey, everyone is jumping on the W7 wagon, so we should concentrate our programming "money" on that platform, and since we're the good guys and love our users, we also through some money away to make it work on XP".

Well even if they tell "f%%% those XP users" I'd understand that, because it is their product. On the side note there is a think that is called "maintenance". I don't know if Adobe has this, but the truth about it is that a company promises to release updates during the maintenance periods that is worth up to the maintenance cost. However, it is one's expectations that the "maintenance" will be worth it, but not the company obligation to "please" every one.

Again, it is US that have a choice to buy specific software or upgrades, but not the company's duty to please everyone with their next line-up of products. It is good when your expectations and the company's release are on the same line, but it never happens for every single user!


i only look at this from a consumer point of view,someone who failes to understand the REASON why adobe dropped support for that OS, if you do know better, can you tell what was "x"?! (but don't guess.. that would be "cheating" :D )
thank you.

[DagMX]

thanks, for your reply, i will ook up john nack's blog, for possible real answers.
i realize that this discussion here is futile,other than "just the way it is" or "I'd expect X would be some pretty technical stuff", i won't really get an answer here...

the part were u mentioned, that "is a very difficult, and often wasted effort." is not something that i would want to hear from a company like adobe, it makes them sound like microsoft, or just plain lazy...

and comparing mac to widnows is like comparing oranges to apples(no pun intended).
I suppose lazy would be a more critical way to think of it, but sooner or later people are going to upgrade to windows 7 and if that's the case it doesn't make pragmatic sense to develop new technology(there is quite a bit new under the hood) to support something that is going to be completely outdated soon. Just my view. i stuck to XP till Windows 7 came out and weighed out my options and upgraded(dual boot on my Macbook pro)

As for comparing mac and windows, I didn't do that. i just said that I'm on a mac and haven't tried CS5 on Windows(my school only has CS4 on XP64). Though reading up about how they've reached the new performance, i can safely assume that the CS4-CS5 performance leap is enough to warrant upgrading.

For example, my laptop struggled editing multiple h.264 files at 1920x1080 from my canon 7D while using Premiere/AFX CS4. CS5 just cut through the files with real time playback and scaling/effects applied. On top of that, I finally have an extra gig of memory available to my programs.

[R10k]

well, i am trully sorry for the embaressment you feel when reading my comment, but you failed to enlighten me, nor did u actually gave an answer to my question...

That's because just previous to your question you went on a big and dumb ol' rant, trying to tell everyone how things were. If you're such an expert on such topics one would expect you able to get out there and search for answers... or, jump onto the Creative Cow forums (or somewhere the Adobe devs hang out) and ask for answers, right from the source.

i only look at this from a consumer point of view,someone who failes to understand the REASON why adobe dropped support for that OS

As I said, and as others have said, sometimes the answers are far too technical for the average consumer.

[Sil3]

Vista is pretty much the worst OS I ever used so I cant blame you for not upgrading. Win 7 is amazing in every way though and well worth upgrading as soon as you can.

Just a bit OT here... W7 is amazing except in its piece of SH*T searching options... but fear not theres an amazing FREE utiliy (32 and 64 bits) called Agent Ransack:

http://mythicsoft.com/page.aspx?type=agentransack&page=home

Sorry for the OT carry on carry on :D

[TJFrame]

I'm running the demo now - love it so far..seems snappier and somehow less "flickery" than CS4 (which I ended up not using in favor of CS3). Something about CS4 was very annoying in a hard to describe way, but CS5 feels more "worn in".. damn that sounds like mumbo-jumbo but it's just an intangible feeling that's hard to put into exact words.

Really love the content-aware stuff and the puppet-wrap warp tool. The one thing that really bugs me (in CS4/5) is that they moved the screen-mode tool to the menubar so now every time I got to toggle that mode I end up going into quick-mask since its now the bottom-most toolbar icon.

[R10k]

I'm running the demo now - love it so far..seems snappier and somehow less "flickery" than CS4 (which I ended up not using in favor of CS3).

I'd be interested to know how it feels compared to what CS4 is today (to me, quite solid after patching).

[DutchDimension]

So is there a comprehensive list anywhere that compares 'PhotoShop CS5' to 'Photoshop CS5 Extended'?
The price difference is quite significant and I'd like to know precisely what features are missing from the regular version.
The Adobe website has a compare (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/compare/) page which is essentially useless.

[pomru]

So is there a comprehensive list anywhere that compares 'PhotoShop CS5' to 'Photoshop CS5 Extended'?
The price difference is quite significant and I'd like to know precisely what features are missing from the regular version.
The Adobe website has a compare (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/compare/) page which is essentially useless.
Wow, that compare page is useless indeed...

The closest I can get to having a side by side feature list comparison is opening one browser window to http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/upgrade/?view=compare and another window to http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshopextended/upgrade/?view=compare

Just how hard is it for someone at Adobe to realize that some of us would like to see this comparison on one page? :P

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.