# Adobe CS5



## auzbuzzard (May 17, 2010)

What do you think about it?

Like it or not? There's quite some interesting features in the new Photoshop CS5. And so much system tuning of the suite many has longed for. Like 64-bit and integration.

If you're a CS user, would you upgrade? If you've never used Adobe suite before, would you use it? If you're a BT user (I dunno), would you gonna try it?


----------



## Joeyyy (May 17, 2010)

Sure.  As long as I ain't payin for it


----------



## Misterraptor (May 17, 2010)

Once a crack is released I will get it.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 17, 2010)

I would love to go CS5, but I'm still on CS2 - it's so goddamn expensive that Adobe prevents 90% of the market from buying it.  They seem to not understand that if they dropped the price to something realistic, they would make A LOT more money.

Also, before getting it, I also have to see if it will run correctly under WINE (CS2 does beautifully) as Windows is no longer my primary OS.


----------



## Apollo (May 17, 2010)

Using Photoshop CS3, have no reason to upgrade really.


----------



## Runefox (May 17, 2010)

ToeClaws: CS4 and CS5 both fail to run in Wine; CS4 supposedly works if you install it in a VM first, but even using the install I have on a Windows partition doesn't seem to work with it. Stick with CS2 if you need to run it under Wine.

Anyway, there's enough performance upgrades and general tweaks here and there to warrant it even outside of the new features in Photoshop. Though, the upgrade tax is dire. I guess if you're a professional you'd be well-served to grab it, but otherwise, pass it up - Use free alternatives like the Gimp (PS), Inkscape (AI), etc. Or use cheaper alternatives like Paint Shop Pro or Paint Tool SAI. Nothing really makes the Adobe suite worth the cash for a casual home user.


----------



## Deleted member 3615 (May 17, 2010)

I use Photoshop to scan and touch up my traditional art. My actual digital art is mostly abstract randomness that I use for music thumbnails. All I need is an early version for that. Oh, and too expensive it makes my head spin.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 17, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ToeClaws: CS4 and CS5 both fail to run in Wine; CS4 supposedly works if you install it in a VM first, but even using the install I have on a Windows partition doesn't seem to work with it. Stick with CS2 if you need to run it under Wine.



Well balls.  Would be nice if they'd make a Linux version and/or stick to proper code so things ran under WINE, but then... that would mean they had some sense of reality.



Runefox said:


> Anyway, there's enough performance upgrades and general tweaks here and there to warrant it even outside of the new features in Photoshop. Though, the upgrade tax is dire. I guess if you're a professional you'd be well-served to grab it, but otherwise, pass it up - Use free alternatives like the Gimp (PS), Inkscape (AI), etc. Or use cheaper alternatives like Paint Shop Pro or Paint Tool SAI. Nothing really makes the Adobe suite worth the cash for a casual home user.



Again, it's mind boggling that they insist on charging so much for their product.  Yes it's awesome - and I doubt anyone would say Photoshop isn't the King of image manipulation, but still - if they capped their price at something most folks could afford like $150, they'd have 10 to 20 times as many people buying it.  Instead, they price it out of the realms of reality and use the old Enterprise-class software excuse.  It's ridiculous.

I'm able to get the product for the educational price, being staff at a university, but even _that_ is still steep. :/  Anyway, if CS5 is busted under WINE, then it's of no interest to me.


----------



## Runefox (May 17, 2010)

Yeah, the installers both fail. Like I said, people have reported success with installing it under a VM and then copying the files out, but I couldn't replicate that via my actual Windows install. I haven't been successful in getting either CS4 or CS5 to install or otherwise work at all under Wine, so while my experience alone isn't the final word, chances are pretty slim that it'll work.


----------



## Aden (May 17, 2010)

I don't think it's a significant enough improvement over my CS4.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 17, 2010)

Aden said:


> I don't think it's a significant enough improvement over my CS4.



Rarely are the improvements from version to version really significant.  Usually it's more like once ever 3 versions or so something big comes along.  The largest single game-changing improvement they did since I started using it was when version 4.0 was introduced because it supported Layers.  Man did that make things easier.


----------



## Runefox (May 17, 2010)

In the professional world, speedups and performance increases can mean a lot in the end. If you're in the industry, you probably owe it to yourself to keep on top of it to take advantage of the potential time savings, but again it would largely depend on what it is you're doing. Again, prosumers and home users probably won't care too much especially for the price, and even the much-touted content-aware fill feature is also available for the Gimp (implemented differently, has its own strengths and weaknesses).


----------



## ToeClaws (May 17, 2010)

yeah - not in the industry myself, just love photo work.  I've been using Photoshop since 1995, but since it's not my bread and butter, cutting edge and execution speed are not as critical, though I have noticed that processing 6mp or higher images with advanced filters like the Noise Reduction can certainly take time when it doesn't know how to take advantage of multiple cores (or 64 bit, for that matter).  

I recall back a few years ago when they had a patch issues to make an older version, I think 6.0, aware of MMX - back then, that did make a notable improvement.


----------



## auzbuzzard (May 17, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> I would love to go CS5, but I'm still on CS2 - it's so goddamn expensive that Adobe prevents 90% of the market from buying it.  They seem to not understand that if they dropped the price to something realistic, they would make A LOT more money.
> 
> Also, before getting it, I also have to see if it will run correctly under WINE (CS2 does beautifully) as Windows is no longer my primary OS.



But why you need wine when there's a Mac OS version?


----------



## Taralack (May 17, 2010)

Just upgraded to CS4, not really game to dl another 6gb. @_@ 

Though that smart fill thing in PS is really... whoa.


----------



## Sam (May 17, 2010)

I have CS3, I have a few reasons for CS5 but not big enough to look past the price tag.


----------



## Runefox (May 17, 2010)

auzbuzzard said:


> But why you need wine when there's a Mac OS version?



Linux?


----------



## ToeClaws (May 17, 2010)

auzbuzzard said:


> But why you need wine when there's a Mac OS version?



Because I don't have (and won't ever have) a Mac?  Thought the Mac OS is at least Unix based, Apple is a iron-fisted control-freak of a company and I would no sooner want their products than Windows. 

On a sidenote of interest, Adobe and Apple have also had a bit of a shakey relationship over the last decade.  For a long time Photoshop was on the Mac (in fact, the first couple versions were only for Macs), but a few years back, Adobe stopped selling a Mac version.  Then they started again, and now Apple is publicly waving off some of Adobe's stuff.  It seems like a bit of a shakey relationship.


----------



## Runefox (May 17, 2010)

Seems almost like Apple has this idea that they want to be the Nintendo of the PC world - Selecting and censoring each major application they wish to support. Certainly, it's the way things are on the iPhone. I wonder if we'll see a Mac "App Store" before long.


----------



## Aden (May 17, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Seems almost like Apple has this idea that they want to be the Nintendo of the PC world - Selecting and censoring each major application they wish to support. Certainly, it's the way things are on the iPhone.



I think you think that app store requirements are far more draconian than they actually are.


----------



## Runefox (May 17, 2010)

Aden said:


> I think you think that app store requirements are far more draconian than they actually are.



"No duplicate functionality" is pretty draconian. Even in the most optimistic view, it's certainly not open.


----------



## Aden (May 17, 2010)

Runefox said:


> "No duplicate functionality" *to the pre-loaded applications* is pretty draconian. Even in the most optimistic view, it's certainly not open.



fixt.
Basically saying that they don't want 8000 different peoples' basic 4-function calculator apps, or hundreds of youtube access apps or basic clocks clogging up the store. You'll notice that if they enhance the functionality even just a bit they'll be allowed: there are a ton of third-party weather, stocks, notes, clock, navigation, and camera apps, for example. Hell, Opera Mini got on.


----------

