Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Upgrades

New Photoshop Details Leaked 511

Posted by CowboyNeal from the sneaking-a-peek dept.
Odie writes "Oops. Looks like Adobe accidentally let slip the details of the next Photoshop version due on Friday. According to BetaNews, the next version, dubbed Photoshop CS2, is supposed to add several new features such as Image Warp and Vanishing Point, as well as changing around the file browser to allow users access to royalty-free images from five providers for use in their work. The new version is due in May according to the press release which BetaNews saw."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Photoshop Details Leaked More

New Photoshop Details Leaked

Comments Filter:

  • New PhotoShop Details Leaked (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:51AM (#12066129)
    I don't believe the screenshots, I bet they've all been photoshop'ed...

  • Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by datadriven ( 699893 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:53AM (#12066138) Homepage
    What are the chances they'll make a linux version. I haven't gotten any versions past 6 to run with wine.

  • Wrong product name. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Guano_Jim ( 157555 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:53AM (#12066140)
    Oops. Looks like Adobe accidentally let slip the details of the next PhotoShop version due on Friday. According to BetaNews, the next version, dubbed PhotoShop CS2,

    Let me be the first to correct the editor and say it's Photoshop [adobe.com], not PhotoShop.

  • Speaking of Duplicating (Score:5, Funny)

    by syntap ( 242090 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:55AM (#12066151)
    I hope the new version is out before a change to the $1 bill happens.

  • Vanishing Point (Score:5, Funny)

    by mattkime ( 8466 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:55AM (#12066156)

    A tool known as Vanishing Point will allow the user to recolor and transform objects in an image without altering its perspective.

    Maybe its just me, but I've never had a problem with the perspective on an object while I was modifying the color. Now, if I'm using the transform function, I probably do want to alter the perspective.

    What does this tool do again?

  • Other features (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MyDixieWrecked ( 548719 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:55AM (#12066158) Homepage Journal
    I went to a Pro Photoshop conference a couple months back where Burt Monroy had a talk. He's an alpha tester for Adobe and people were asking about whether adobe was working on certain features.

    One feature he mentioned that was a big one for the next version of photoshop, and something they were having a lot of trouble with, was Layer Filters. Much like the Adjustment Layer, you can apply a filter on a layer and turn the effects of the filter on and off. It's more than the LayerEffects because those are limited to drop shadows and glows and the like, where LayerFilters let you apply a blur or noise or even KPT and third-party filters.

    I'm psyched about that. although, I feel that Photoshop is getting quite bloated. My favourite version of photoshop is still 5.5. Too bad it doesn't work in OSX. CS does have some nice features, though...

    IllustratorCS is getting a bit bloated lately, too. Runs like crap on lower-end machines. Illustrator used to be the one adobe product that ran well even on older hardware (until version 9 with those Raster Effects).
    • actually, it's Bert Monroy. Burt Monroy is a milkman who lives somewhere deep in the heart of wisconsin.
    • PS 5.5 works fine on XP! I use it all the time. Of course, it's mainly because I got it free and don't want to pay for PS, but I agree, it has all the stuff I need.

    • Re:Other features (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jameth ( 664111 )
      Not only is it getting bloated, Illustrator 10 has gotten rather unstable as well. With the earlier versions, it didn't crash for anything. But running 10.0.3, I've lost tons of work to it crashing out.

      And, the worst error of all, one of the crashes can't be worked around by saving often. If Illustrator 10.0.3 is saving to a disk that doesn't have sufficient space for what it's saving (when not at home, I'm writing to a network mount with rather limited storage) Illustrator doesn't just fail, it writes as

  • Talent? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Broiler ( 804077 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:55AM (#12066160)
    The only thing this program can't do is make me a talented photographer.

  • Just on time (Score:5, Funny)

    by karvind ( 833059 ) <karvind@gm a i l . com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:56AM (#12066161) Journal
    Considering the time it takes to start the program (from clicking the icon to scanning plugins to open the window with picture), I think 5 days starting time for the next version isn't that bad.

  • It ain't cheap (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bad to the Ben ( 871357 )
    The standalone version of Photoshop CS2 will cost $599 USD, with an upgrade available for $149 USD.

    Ouch. Am I the only one who thinks it a bit much when applications software costs more than the OS?

    Then again, judging by how popular it is I guess it must be worth it to some people.

    • Then again, judging by how popular it is I guess it must be worth it to some people.

      I'd wager that only a small percentage, say < 10%, have actually paid for it. It's also incredibly "popular" on the P2P networks.

    • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stubear ( 130454 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:59AM (#12066192)
      Photoshop is designed for professionals, like myself, who make a shitload of money using it. $599 is a drop in the bucket, not even a full day's billing for me. As long as Adobe keeps creating applications like Photoshop thatlet me be creative with little fuss and hassle, I'll keep upgrading my copy.

    • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cyphertube ( 62291 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:59AM (#12066201) Homepage Journal

      Actually, it's a sad statement if you expect the OS to cost more than the applications. Either you expect everything to be included in the OS, you're used to high-price OS through virtual monopoly, or you're suffering from both, via a Microsoft mentality.

      Given the profit potential for someone using this software professionally, I think the price tag is actually quite reasonable.

      (Now, if only they'd make their products run on Linux.)

      • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:5, Interesting)

        by aldoman ( 670791 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:09PM (#12066302) Homepage
        I'm sure they'd love to have their products run on Linux, but it's quite frankly near impossible for big commercial developers to make anything but high end specialised 3D apps or web apps on Linux.

        Something like Photoshop would be an absolute nightmare to port.

        Would it be done in Qt, GTK1, GTK2 or raw X widgets? Which printer dialogs would it use -- KDE or GNOME? Which file selectors would it use? How would they keep up, test and fix bugs for GNOME on a 6 month cycle or KDE on a ?? month cycle? How would you have it look nice with the default theme of the desktop?

        I can tell you if Adobe ported it the 'slashdoters' would hate it. It would be bloated, slow, buggy and wouldn't fit well into any desktop enviroment. It'd also only be out for x86 and tested on 3 distros max.

        The trouble is that at the moment the Linux desktop is moving too fast (with no effort put on old releases of libs or software) at the moment for major software vendors to put out anything but huge 3D apps that are basically their own desktop enviroment, sandboxed from the rest of the system. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing that Linux is moving really fast, because it's getting closer and closer to Windows or Mac calibre usability with every release, but expecting Adobe to port photoshop, a fairly substainal app with tools that move and break every 6 months is not going to happen.

        • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:4, Interesting)

          by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:16PM (#12066363) Homepage
          Would it be done in Qt, GTK1, GTK2 or raw X widgets? Which printer dialogs would it use -- KDE or GNOME? Which file selectors would it use?

          Sounds like programming on Windows. Would it be done with Win32, MFC, WinForms, Avalon, Adobe's on UI kit? Which of the Windows printer and file dialogs would it use -- the old old ones, the old ones, the new old ones, the Office ones, Adobe's own?

          • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

            by RailGunner ( 554645 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:59PM (#12066812) Journal
            Actually if they ponied up for Qt, they could get it running under Windows and Linux fairly easily.

            But you're right - developing for Windows sucks. I would know. (Plus, in your list, you forgot to add ATL/COM, to take advantage of a bunch of crappy .ocx controls.)

          • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:3, Informative)

            by DarkEdgeX ( 212110 )
            Eh? QT, GTK and the others listed are literally different GUI frameworks. Win32, MFC and WinForms are all Win32. Avalon is new for Longhorn (and now for Windows XP it seems) but it's still in beta (read: it's irrelevant).
        • >How would they keep up, test and fix bugs for GNOME on a 6 month cycle or KDE on a ?? month cycle? ...
          >The trouble is that at the moment the Linux desktop is moving too fast (with no effort put on old releases of libs or software) at the moment for major software vendors to put out anything but huge 3D apps that are basically their own desktop enviroment, sandboxed from the rest of the system.

          You don't have to keep up with the gnome/kde release cycles, that is the point of versioned libraries and st

    • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LocoMan ( 744414 )
      Not too expensive considering it's a pro level software that you could make money with... :) Also doesn't look too expensive once you start to compare it with 3D apps where a single seat of a pro level software can go from around $400 (the most basic level of XSI that got a huge price cut not too long ago) to over $11,000 (Houdini Master)... :)

    • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FedeTXF ( 456407 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:08PM (#12066284)
      You may well be very few. The OS should not cost more than applications software, because applications are what people actually use to work/play/communicate and the OS is just what abstracts hardware. How much do ypu pay for a TV and how much you pay for cable? How much for a telephone and how much for actually phoning? How much for sitting at a restaurant and how much for food? The OS should be free (no money) and in practical terms it is, even 99% of legal windows copies are cheap (oem versions add very little to the PC cost, even when nobody knows how much).

    • Re:It ain't cheap (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Marc_Hawke ( 130338 )
      I think it's fine for them to cost more than the OS. The OS should be free with the hardware...

      But, it's a little extreme when the application costs more than the hardware.

      (Like a WoW subscription costing more than the internet connection to play it on.)
    • If you call up SGI and ask to buy a copy of IRIX, I think it costs about $200, if I remember right.

      If you call up Discreet and ask to buy a copy of Inferno, it'll cost you $650,000.

      It is entirely appropriate for the application to cost more than the OS. The application does more.
    • Why in the hell a good app should cost _less_ than an OS? Are you serious about thinking that the OS, the piece of software required on every computer (don't flame me, I don't mean Windows, I wrote "_an_ OS") and that does basically nothing per se, but lets other apps run should cost a bundle? Sorry, but I'm just slightly amazed by your comparison.

  • Free Images (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Manip ( 656104 )
    I really wish other media (sound, music, pictures) was as clear cut as software when it comes to free usage.

    For example, if I wanted to write a piece of software and needed icons for it, I might be able to find some but rarly do you get any kind of guarentee that they won't turn around and sue you.

    Point is, this feature is welcome as long as they are very explicit about *exactly* how you can use this material.

  • Not interested (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As long as it restricts loading of certain documents such as paper currency, I am not interested. Adobe is a tool.
  • I, for one, look forward to it. What the world needs is more realistic photos of the Kiss Pandas [lelombrik4.free.fr] and cats with turtle shells.

    The Kiss Pandas eat, shoot, and rock!!!

  • Never again -- product activation and Sklyarov (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:58AM (#12066176) Homepage Journal
    I frequent other forums where photographers and artists hang out.

    It's depressing to see how many people will cough up half a grand on the next release of Photoshop every year or two, even though the new features are very small improvements. They complain constantly about product activation problems, but they don't even consider the idea of using a different product.

    And how many photographers and artists heard about the Sklyarov case? Virtually zero. A vanishingly small number of people have even heard about it, nevermind formed an opinion, nevermind see it as a cause for avoiding the company.

    Use something else. Anything else. I've purchased no Adobe software in the past five years (except I discarded an OEM bundled thing that came with my camera). Unfortunately, companies like Microsoft and Adobe has reached a critical mass where they're immensely insulated from consumer backlash: consumers with apathy and ignorance far outspends the consumers with objections.

    • Um, the upgrade price is $149....

      The lack of competition is depressing. The best thing a competitor could do would be to provide AMAZING customer support.

      Looking at the new features in the next version of Photoshop, they'll be provide a great interface for the major stock photo companies, so don't expect their grip to slacken at all.

    • And how many photographers and artists heard about the Sklyarov case? Virtually zero. A vanishingly small number of people have even heard about it

      Have you considered that many of us have heard about it, and simply don't care? Guy breaks EULA, guy reverse engineers copyright protection code, guy publishes way to break company's proprietary document protection code, company gets understandably upset and pursues legal options. Ho-hum. Why should Adobe have acted any differently.

      They still make the best

      • Re:Never again -- product activation and Sklyarov (Score:5, Informative)

        by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:44PM (#12066656) Homepage
        That's an amazingly biased summary.

        Point the first: Skylarov wrote the code on behalf of his employer. Any legal liabilities should have been theirs, not his.

        Point the second: Skylarov lived and worked in Russia, a place where American law doesn't apply.

        Point the third: Skylarov was arrested under the DMCA, which is a bad, nasty, pointless, stupid law which effectively overthrows the balance of rights that has always existed between publishers and their customers, replacing it with a simple maxim: Publishers can limit the use of their works in whatever ways technology will allow. Further, because of the anti-circumvention portions (which make basic security research illegal) they don't even have to be terribly clever about it. DMCA kills fair use, time shifting, format shifting, etc., unless the publishers deem it in their interests to allow it. Finally, the DMCA allows publishers to protect their works in such ways as will allow them to retain complete control over their works even after the work should have reached the public domain (not that anything new will ever enter the public domain in this country).

        Bad laws shouldn't exist. People shouldn't be prosecuted under bad laws. Case closed.

        Point the fourth: One of your assertions is flat out wrong. After a meeting with the EFF, Adobe dropped its support for the prosecution of Dmitri Skylarov [press release] [adobe.com]. They're still pursuing the case against Elcomsoft.

        Don't care about the Skylarov case? Fine. Don't care to boycott Adobe? No problem. But don't come in here and try to misrepresent the case to a group of people who were watching when it happened.

    • What different product? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tgd ( 2822 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:07PM (#12066278)
      They have a total monopoly in the professional image editing marketspace. There are no other products. Gimp (which I prefer in many cases) can't do half of the things a professional graphic artist needs, plus the UI is too different to efficiently switch. And when looking at photo editing, I havent' seen ANY product that has good RAW support other than Photoshop (and its support is mediocre at best).

  • misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by tyler083 ( 775626 ) <tyler&tylerc,net> on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:58AM (#12066177) Homepage
    the announcement is this friday, not the actual new version of photoshop. that is due in may.

  • But... (Score:2, Funny)

    by MatthewParker ( 837763 )
    Will it come with a stop watch?

  • I am confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by funny-jack ( 741994 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:58AM (#12066190) Homepage
    the details of the next PhotoShop version due on Friday... The new version is due in May...

    So, wait. Is the new version due on Friday, or is it due in May? I'm seriously confused by this poorly worded sentence.

    Will someone remind me what it is the Slashdot editors do?

  • Yeah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nightreaver ( 695006 )
    But but what we really want to know is if it will run on Linux?

  • Accidentally ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cinnamon colbert ( 732724 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:59AM (#12066199) Journal
    I think it is called marketing and its goal is to create buzz...and /. bought it, hoook, line and sinker

  • Press link (Score:5, Informative)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:59AM (#12066200) Homepage
    Here is [64.233.179.104] the original press link as linked by one of the comments on the article's page.

  • am i the only one (Score:5, Informative)

    by remove office ( 871398 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:02PM (#12066216) Homepage
    am i the only one who's excited about finally (after how many versions of the premier general purpose graphics program) getting a WYSIWYG font selector?

    • Re:am i the only one (Score:5, Informative)

      by thirteenVA ( 759860 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:32PM (#12066513)
      While I agree that a WYSIWYG font selector is awesome, I think the reason we did not see one sooner is based on the target market for photoshop.

      Most pro-users like myself use external font management software for which we can preview and select fonts for a project. (as well as activating and deactivating them). I'd hate to think of how slow that WYSIWYG font editor would work with my 500+ fonts.

    • Re:am i the only one (Score:3, Informative)

      by Colol ( 35104 )
      am i the only one who's excited about finally (after how many versions of the premier general purpose graphics program) getting a WYSIWYG font selector?

      Yup. I regularly turn that feature off in apps that support it. Many less mainstream typefaces aren't designed to be displayed that small, resulting in a font list full of useless gobbledygook.

      Plus seeing the font in its own typeface doesn't necessarily portray how it will look in your use case (especially with Photoshop's smoothing thrown into the mix) -

  • Text of press release (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:02PM (#12066219) Homepage
    This news hit the photography sites yesterday too. Since Adobe has now pulled the document, here is the text of the press release yanked from my browser cache with a little more info than BetaNews published:

    SAN JOSE, Calif. -- April 4, 2005 -- Adobe Systems Incorporated today announced Adobe Photoshop CS2, a major upgrade to the professional industry standard for digital image editing and creation. Available as a stand-alone software application or as a key component of Adobe Creative Suite 2, also announced today (see separate press release), Photoshop CS2 software brings a new level of power, precision and control to the digital photography experience and to the overall creative process.

    "Photoshop CS2 pushes the envelope with powerful features and simplified workflows that provide photographers and creative professionals the freedom to deliver stunning images," said Bryan Lamkin, senior vice president of Digital Imaging and Digital Video Products at Adobe. "In light of the four million digital SLRs expected to ship this year, more photographers than ever will be making Photoshop CS2 their digital darkroom of choice."

    Photoshop CS2 integrates a new set of intuitive tools, including an enhanced Spot Healing Brush, for handling common photographic problems such as blemishes, red-eye, noise, blurring and lens distortion. Responding to requests from film, broadcast and video professionals, Photoshop CS2 now allows non-destructive editing and the creation and editing of 32-Bit High Dynamic Range (HDR) images, ideal for 3D rendering and advanced compositing.

    The new Camera Raw 3.0 workflow allows settings for multiple raw files to be simultaneously modified. In addition batch processing of raw files, to JPEG, TIFF, DNG or PSD formats, can now be done in the background without launching the main Photoshop executable. Integrated, non-destructive cropping and straightening controls allow raw files to be easily prepared for final output.

    Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Mac OS X version 10.2.8 through 10.3.8, Microsoft Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4 or Windows XP with Service Pack 1 or 2, will begin shipping in May to customers in the United States and Canada, and will be available through Adobe Authorized Resellers and the Adobe Store at www.adobe.com/store. International versions are expected to begin shipping in late May and early June. Adobe Photoshop CS2 will be available for an estimated street price of US$599 and licensed users of any previous version of Photoshop can upgrade for US$149.

  • very Creative. (Score:4, Funny)

    by fafaforza ( 248976 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:03PM (#12066229)
    PhotoShop CS2? Not a very creative name for this Creative Suite.

  • Asking Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ceeam ( 39911 )
    I appologize for abusing the thread, but can anyone recommend a decent, inexpensive or maybe free at all, Windows software for printing photos? All I want is cropping tool, borderless printing support (so I don't have to go thru all the "Page/printer setup" options every time), good noise remover (something like NeatImage built in), and some usual simple contrast, color cast, levels adjustment tools. Some basic organizer wouldn't hurt either. I checked PhotoShop Elements, but it's pig slow and totally unint

  • Still no flexible compositing system (Score:3, Interesting)

    by inio ( 26835 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:19PM (#12066396) Homepage
    What I've been waiting could best be described as Shake [apple.com] for stills. Many times I find myself wanting to use layer combining to create an mask channel, or use the same alpha channel as the mask for multiple layers (in ways that a masked layer group won't allow). Combine this with Photoshop's existing tools and the Filter Layers that have been alluded to and you'd have a really powerful compositing system. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be offering such an environment.

    • You might want to look at QFX. It's at version 8, but it's actually been around far longer than Photoshop. I first used it as a DOS program on AT&T Targa and Vista cards. Back then it was a collection of independent program to manipulate 32-bit files. I was compositing 2k images using this program back in the 80s for output to 35mm film using DOS batch files. Anyway, it's written by a small company and technical support is excellent. It costs less than photoshop, there is a free version to check out it

  • More spoilers here (Score:5, Funny)

    by legLess ( 127550 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:20PM (#12066406) Journal
    Some other features we can expect from Adobe, paragons of cutting-edge innovation:
    • Fuzzy dice.
    • Differently-shaped headlights.
    • A nice new splash screen.
    • Chrome, lots of it. Ooh ... shiny!
    • Fins.

  • CS2, that makes it... (Score:3, Funny)

    by nxtr ( 813179 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:37PM (#12066563)
    Photoshop Source!

  • New features? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bman08 ( 239376 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:37PM (#12066567)
    Are these compelling features to anybody? It seems to me like Photoshop is a product that's just reached the limit of being able to produce worthwhile upgrades. I'm sure a lot of these features are nice, but come on. Photoshop 6 does the job just fine. Version 7 is better, but a couple hundred dollars better? The same goes for CS and now CS2. I applaud adobe for making what is, to my mind, one of the most usable pieces of software ever given complexity of the job it does, but you've got to let your customers off the hamster wheel upgrade cycle at some point... don't you?
    • Some of the RAW features are pretty compelling. For instance the ability to more easily batch process RAW files without the main executable being loaded can be pretty useful. And the ability to crop and strighten an image before you even do the raw processing is really nice since it lets you keep the RAW file around as the canonical imagine instead of a TIFF file with rotation and cropping applied.

      For anyone not using RAW images though I would have to say the changes sound more marginal.

  • Photoshop CSI (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dahlgil ( 631022 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @01:06PM (#12066872)
    This is the version I've been waiting for. You know, the one where you can take a grainy picture of a person standing two blocks away and zoom in to create an 11x14 enlargement of the person's index fingerprint. Come on Adobe!
    • Don't worry, there will be a new "Enhance" menu. It will have sub-items "zoom in on that", "Can you see what's behind that", "What is that a reflection?" and "Clear that up". These commands only work if someone is looking over your shoulder, never alone. It has been rumored that there will be a "run through APHIS" command, but this may be disabled in the consumer edition. Myself, I would rather add "Undo stupid changes" to Edit, but that's just me.

    • Re:Photoshop CSI (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MayorDefacto ( 586113 )
      As a graphic designer who works in-house at a real estate company, your post made me cringe. I am asked by clueless real estate vultures, er, agents on a daily basis if I can "blow up" (with plastique?) a 640x480 shot that they took with their camera phone to a nice 1800x1200 shot to publish in one of the local glossy realty magazines. Then they act like I'm some sort of impertinent layabout when I tell them that it's not a good idea and I refuse to do it. Their response is usually something like, "but you

  • Just as long as. . . (Score:3)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @02:46PM (#12067955)
    the work window doesn't auto re-size when I use the magnification tool. (They started doing this around version 6 or 7.)

    Man, that drives me crazy! STOP trying to think FOR me, dammit! I don't want ANY auto features if I can't switch them off. I know how big I want my work window, so stop changing it according to some ill-inspired whim of whatever chief Adobe designer happened to be sprouting 'decisions' that week.

    If I wanted my machine to treat me like a child, I'd use safety-scissors, mittens would dangle on strings from the sleeves of my winter coat, my Mom would still dress me and I'd have bought an Apple.


    -FL

  • STILL not 64-bit! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @03:31PM (#12068458) Homepage
    There are two must-have upgrade reasons to get PS CS 2:

    1. 64-bit for performance and file size
    2. To add your camera if you have a new one.

    The first, 64-bit, is noticably missing from PS CS 2. Adobe is saying that CS2 will "prepare for 64-bit" -- whatever that means -- but that it is still a 32-bit app.

    The second, is to add support for new cameras that have come out that were not included in the last RAW plug-in. The new Nikon D2X is notably in the list.

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close