- #Cnet photoshop cs5 mac upgrade
- #Cnet photoshop cs5 mac software
- #Cnet photoshop cs5 mac Pc
- #Cnet photoshop cs5 mac windows 7
- #Cnet photoshop cs5 mac windows
#Cnet photoshop cs5 mac windows
It washes in the Windows world - it's exactly the same. So much e-waste.Seriously? Have you kept up at all with all the forum threads where the OP says "I have this scanner that I used with Windows XP and now I've upgraded to and it doesn't work!" and the only workable answer is "Buy Vuescan" - which is exactly the same answer they get if they ask the same question but with a new Mac. Mac's 100% worse than anything they poked fun at Vista for. I have friend that bought plugins and scanners and printers and it can be used on an older OS but not the newer. You're indignant because your computer's left out of the club, but this isn't because of Apple, it's because it's old and it's not in Adobe's target market. The Microcenter near my house sells such a computer for $300 (which is too much) and I've run benchmarks on it, and I would never try to run Photoshop CS4 on it, let alone CS5. Your 2005 Windows box would have had 1GB of RAM or 2GB if you were lucky. If you had the Pentium D (which was brand new) you'd have 1/4 the power of that i5, a chip now used in low end desktops PCs. At 3.6GHz maximum, one of these cores would have been as fast as one core of a theoretical (this is so slow Intel never made one) 1.8GHz Core 2 desktop.
#Cnet photoshop cs5 mac Pc
If you'd bought a Windows PC then, it would have been a Pentium 4, probably an HT or D model. They need to target their market, and their market wants the highest performance features. Your computer is old, you are in the small minority and you want Adobe to bend over to cater to you. Apple didn't want to change architectures - it's not like they went into their morning meeting one day and said "let's screw some G5 owners and create a huge and expensive pain in the ass for ourselves" - you make moves like that only when you have to. The PowerPC hardware was too expensive, the motherboards too low production and it was killing Apple in the market. A laptop chip that outperformed the previous workstation chips, and Motorola had no answer to it. Desktop class chips were G4's, which were competitive with Pentium 4 only because Pentium 4 was a load of trash, but Core Duo was about to hit the market and make Pentium 4, G4 and G5 obsolete. Too much power consumption, too much heat. Couldn't do a dual-core in anything below the workstation class. In 2005 the PowerPC suppliers were hitting a wall. You don't understand the technical reasons for Apple's moves, or Adobe's, or the difference between them, or even the car years analogy. You've got an axe to grind and a lack of technica background to understand the subject. I was diplomatic and I've been insulted for it, so, gloves off. So should Adobe forget about writing in support for all the new hardware and OS features the new platform supports and aim for the lowest common denominator, or should you use CS4? And should Apple be blamed for Adobe's decision? Those companies are obviously not able to control each other's platform decisions, as the fight over Flash reveals.
#Cnet photoshop cs5 mac upgrade
that's a lot, and when you assume a correlation between people who upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop and people who buy new hardware more than once every 5 years, the percentage of CS5 users with Intels is huge. Adobe gave you 4.5 years warning before yanking your Photoshop upgrade, Apple put out 10.5 for PowerPC 1.5 years after adopting Intel and still releases minor updates for it and along the way did a bang-up job making the Intel transition as painless as possible.Īs far as anybody can figure out, Intel Macs are now somewhere between 93% and 96% of the installed base. Sure it sucks but Apple and Adobe didn't just leave you hanging.
#Cnet photoshop cs5 mac windows 7
Even Microsoft admits that Windows 7 is Windows Vista.1 and going from Vista to 7 causes more incompatibilities than moving between incompatible platforms on Mac.
All this was done so close to transparently that the transition went much better than any Windows upgrade, which is a far less complicated thing. They went from PowerPC to x86 - a big endian RISC architecture to a little endian CISC architecture - no compatibility at all, complete rewrite of everything required - then immediately went to work on moving to 64-bit. If you drive a 1995 model car you have the expectation that it might give up on you and that's just how it is. 4.5 in computer years is 15 in car years.
#Cnet photoshop cs5 mac software
Yes, it sucks that companies are starting to not put out software for your computer, but 4 years is old, and the writing was actually on the wall in late 2005 when they announced the transition to Intel so it's more like 4.5 years.