What Mac apps out this list work on latest Macbook?
dorayme
Photoshop,
Illustrator,
Indesign,
Macromedia Flash
Macromedia Fireworks
Adobe Acrobat Pro
work, straight off with no hard problems to fix
on latest Macbook running Snow Leapard?
If no one knows this for sure, what versions of any of these have proved
to work on your machines.
Please.
--
dorayme
Mr. Strat
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Does anyone know what the earliest mac versions of
>
> Photoshop,
> Illustrator,
> Indesign,
> Macromedia Flash
> Macromedia Fireworks
> Adobe Acrobat Pro
>
> work, straight off with no hard problems to fix
>
> on latest Macbook running Snow Leapard?
I have and am using CS3 with Snow Leopard. I don't think Adobe
recommends anything earlier.
dorayme
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
OK, thanks.
My new Macbook is on its way. It was not easily possible to get an
earlier MacBook - which I have had advice here would be easier to load
up with earlier versions of Leopard. So I am exploring possibilities of
working with upgrades to software. Frankly, I would be happy to keep
using my present software and ditching Snow for a while. I asked the Mac
Shop commercial experts if I could load up early Leopard and they said
they could not see why not. My idea was to copy what comes on the
machine to an external drive and store it till I am good and ready to
use Snow. And to install Leopard, either via the disks or as a restore
odf some kind from an external volume where it is a going concern.
--
dorayme
David Empson
> In article <010120101317290423%r...@nospam.techline.com>,
> "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <doraymeRidThis-848...@news.albasani.net>,
> > dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know what the earliest mac versions of [Adobe Creative
> > > Suite apps] work, straight off with no hard problems to fix on
> > > latest Macbook running Snow Leapard?
> >
> > I have and am using CS3 with Snow Leopard. I don't think Adobe
> > recommends anything earlier.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> My new Macbook is on its way. It was not easily possible to get an
> earlier MacBook - which I have had advice here would be easier to load
> up with earlier versions of Leopard. So I am exploring possibilities of
> working with upgrades to software. Frankly, I would be happy to keep
> using my present software and ditching Snow for a while. I asked the Mac
> Shop commercial experts if I could load up early Leopard and they said
> they could not see why not.
I can. The latest MacBook (polycarbonate unibody, late 2009 model) has a
higher model ID than the last model which was supplied with Leopard, so
there is a high probablity that no version of Leopard has the necessary
kernel and/or driver support for the current MacBook.
The current MacBook doesn't even work with retail Snow Leopard (10.6.0)
- the copy of 10.6.1 supplied with the computer is required (or any Snow
Leopard updated to 10.6.2 or later).
The same situation applies with the current iMac models (21.5" and 27")
- they can't easily be made to run Leopard because they are new hardware
models that were never supplied with Leopard.
If it is a MacBook Pro (any model), you are fine, because they were
introduced in June 2009 and are supported by 10.5.8. (Same goes for the
current Mac Mini.)
> My idea was to copy what comes on the machine to an external drive and
> store it till I am good and ready to use Snow.
Not necessary. You can use the DVDs supplied with the computer to
reinstall what was included on the hard drive.
> And to install Leopard, either via the disks or as a restore odf some kind
> from an external volume where it is a going concern.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
dorayme
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
I feared as much - yes it is a Macbook, I like the white and I hate the
black of the pros) but since you were not in Sydney with me in the
store, all I could do is ask with a suspicious face, rub my chin in a
certain skeptical way... and decide that even if they are wrong (which
it looks like) I will go ahead. For quite some time I can prepare
graphic elements on my older machines and there will be a lot I will be
able to do on the new... Nice looking toys, I like the idea of the built
in wifi.
I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. It is not
exactly ancient history! It is all controlled by one company. Beats me!
Is it sheer crookery? Is it a commercial thing? Is it a very very very
hard technical hurdle. It's a Mac, it is Intel, it uses SATA drives, it
is not something made by an advanced civilization with a very foreign ET
language... <g>
> > My idea was to copy what comes on the machine to an external drive and
> > store it till I am good and ready to use Snow.
>
> Not necessary. You can use the DVDs supplied with the computer to
> reinstall what was included on the hard drive.
>
Yes OK, it was merely an easy thing to do, I thought, rather than fillin
forms and make decisions and find DVDs in my piles (hard disks I rarely
lose <g>)
> > And to install Leopard, either via the disks or as a restore odf some kind
> > from an external volume where it is a going concern.
--
dorayme
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I feared as much - yes it is a Macbook, I like the white and I hate the
> black of the pros)
macbooks are white or black (although it looks like the black version
is no more). macbook pros are neither, they're aluminum and silver in
colour.
> I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
> it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook.
leopard is done. they're not updating it anymore, other than the
occasional security update.
David Empson
> In article <1jbozef.187q6lhln6ulvN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > My new Macbook is on its way. It was not easily possible to get an
> > > earlier MacBook - which I have had advice here would be easier to load
> > > up with earlier versions of Leopard. So I am exploring possibilities of
> > > working with upgrades to software. Frankly, I would be happy to keep
> > > using my present software and ditching Snow for a while. I asked the Mac
> > > Shop commercial experts if I could load up early Leopard and they said
> > > they could not see why not.
> >
> > I can. The latest MacBook (polycarbonate unibody, late 2009 model) has a
> > higher model ID than the last model which was supplied with Leopard, so
> > there is a high probablity that no version of Leopard has the necessary
> > kernel and/or driver support for the current MacBook.
> >
> > The current MacBook doesn't even work with retail Snow Leopard (10.6.0)
> > - the copy of 10.6.1 supplied with the computer is required (or any Snow
> > Leopard updated to 10.6.2 or later).
[snip]
> I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
> it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. It is not
> exactly ancient history! It is all controlled by one company. Beats me!
> Is it sheer crookery? Is it a commercial thing? Is it a very very very
> hard technical hurdle. It's a Mac, it is Intel, it uses SATA drives, it
> is not something made by an advanced civilization with a very foreign ET
> language... <g>
Apple knows the exact hardware configuration of each model which it
supports in a particular general release of Mac OS X, so it only needs
to include drivers and support code for those models.
Every time a new hardware model gets released, they need to update the
OS to support it. This is usually done by releasing a special build of
the OS to support just that model (e.g. a special 10.6.1 in this case),
and those changes are incorporated into the next general update (e.g.
10.6.2).
After they release a new major version of the operating system (e.g.
10.6), they stop doing major changes to the previous major OS version
(e.g. 10.5). This means that the previous major OS version never
receives the updates required to support later hardware models. The only
subsequent changes to older major OS versions are security updates,
fixes for serious bugs, and minor component updates (e.g. QuickTime,
Safari).
i.e. it is entirely Apple's software development policy which prevents
Leopard from working easily on some of the latest models.
I personally wish they didn't have such a hard cutoff for purchase of
old OS versions or for new computer models not supporting old OS
versions - a six month overlap would give people more flexibility in
deciding when to switch to a new OS version, or to upgrade to the last
supported OS for an older model.
The main reason for this policy is it would create a lot more work for
Apple to develop and test this extra support code in two major OS
versions, especially when only a tiny proportion of the user base would
bother downgrading to an older OS.
It also goes against their general policy of actively encouraging people
to use the latest version of Mac OS X, or to buy a new Mac rather than
upgrading an existing old Mac to an out of date OS.
The sorts of hardware features which make this a significant issues are:
- New CPU revisions which weren't used under the previous OS. They may
require kernel-level changes in areas like cache management, or if the
CPU has major new features, support code for those features.
- Other new or revised major components on the logic board, such as the
memory controller, I/O controller or video controller.
- New versions of peripheral components (e.g. a revised Airport or
Bluetooth chipset).
Much of this is identifiable through the "Model ID" which Apple defines
for each Mac (e.g. "MacBook6,1" for the latest MacBook). If the model ID
changes from the previous model, then there has been some significant
hardware component change. In some cases (particularly low-end models)
this may just be the model inheriting components which already existed
in other models, but in high-end models it usually indicates a new
component which won't work on an older OS.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-54E...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I feared as much - yes it is a Macbook, I like the white and I hate the
> > black of the pros)
>
> macbooks are white or black (although it looks like the black version
> is no more). macbook pros are neither, they're aluminum and silver in
> colour.
>
Well, yes ... OK? (I did not know about older black Macbooks)
> > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
> > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook.
>
> leopard is done. they're not updating it anymore, other than the
> occasional security update.
That is not what puzzles me?
--
dorayme
dorayme
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
Bottom line, would it be *technically very hard* in a five year period
at least, to allow users to install whatever legal OS X they liked. I
accept that the Powermac/Intel is a bridge too far and Tiger is lost.
I find it hard to accept or approve of any greedy commercial decisions
that would block even third parties from making some firmware or
whatever other software patches to enable a perfectly reasonable thing
for Apple customers to avoid, namely expensive software upgrades like
Photoshop. I happily shelled out a couple of grand, they should be nice
to those like me. I think the "entirely Apple's software development
policy which prevents Leopard from working easily on some of the latest
models." stinks unless there is *a huge cost* for them in extra work,
about which I have no knowledge.
--
dorayme
Steven Fisher
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I find it hard to accept or approve of any greedy commercial decisions
> that would block even third parties from making some firmware or
> whatever other software patches to enable a perfectly reasonable thing
> for Apple customers to avoid, namely expensive software upgrades like
> Photoshop. I happily shelled out a couple of grand, they should be nice
> to those like me. I think the "entirely Apple's software development
> policy which prevents Leopard from working easily on some of the latest
> models." stinks unless there is *a huge cost* for them in extra work,
> about which I have no knowledge.
Sounds like your complaint is with Adobe, doesn't it?
Steve
Király
> I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
> it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook.
Installing Leopard requires booting up from a Leopard DVD. No Leopard
DVDs in existence contain the necessary hardware drivers that will boot
up a brand new MacBook, because current MacBooks didn't exist when those
DVDs were pressed. It isn't worth Apple's time or money to develop and
release a new pressing of Leopard DVDs that will install on Macs that
shipped with Snow Leopard. Get a second hand Mac that is capable of
running Leopard if you really want Leopard.
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
dorayme
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Does it? Perhaps!
I have a version of PS and Illustrator and Fireworks for PCs, way old
and that have worked fine for years on PCs and through from 98 to
win2000 to XP and from Celerons to AMDs to Pentiums, I would not be
surprised if they did not work fine on win7.
Anything that that screaming pile of an OS can do and the machines they
run on should always be outclassed in every important respect by Macs! I
simply don't really know, but my vague impression is that the world is
getting more avaricious and that includes Apple.
Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to this elegant Macbook. I have
the right to whinge a bit, the salesman said I could if I spent more
than a couple of grand! <g>
--
dorayme
dorayme
m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
> > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook.
>
> Installing Leopard requires booting up from a Leopard DVD. No Leopard
> DVDs in existence contain the necessary hardware drivers that will boot
> up a brand new MacBook, because current MacBooks didn't exist when those
> DVDs were pressed. It isn't worth Apple's time or money to develop and
> release a new pressing of Leopard DVDs that will install on Macs that
> shipped with Snow Leopard.
It is as if you are saying there is no other way to deliver patches and
extras to assist a DVD install... Surely not?
> Get a second hand Mac that is capable of
> running Leopard if you really want Leopard.
Too late. It will force me into changing, I needed a bit of a kick! I
have been far too pleased with this trusty QS I still use and run my
business on. Luvly machine it is. Might buy a spare on eBay... <g>
--
dorayme
Eric
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> My new Macbook is on its way. It was not easily possible to get an
> earlier MacBook - which I have had advice here would be easier to load
> up with earlier versions of Leopard. So I am exploring possibilities of
> working with upgrades to software. Frankly, I would be happy to keep
> using my present software and ditching Snow for a while. I asked the Mac
> Shop commercial experts if I could load up early Leopard and they said
> they could not see why not. My idea was to copy what comes on the
> machine to an external drive and store it till I am good and ready to
> use Snow. And to install Leopard, either via the disks or as a restore
> odf some kind from an external volume where it is a going concern.
Why not just make an external drive bootable, and attempt to run Leopard
from that? Then when everything goes wrong, you can revert to using Snow
Leopard without needing to reinstall.
Eric
> I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making
> it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. It is not
> exactly ancient history! It is all controlled by one company. Beats me!
> Is it sheer crookery? Is it a commercial thing? Is it a very very very
> hard technical hurdle. It's a Mac, it is Intel, it uses SATA drives, it
> is not something made by an advanced civilization with a very foreign ET
> language... <g>
Apple appear to have some future commercial reason to attempt to push
everyone towards Snow Leopard. Seems to explain making it harder to run
earlier versions on new hardware. Also the far lower price.
Lou Pecora
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
I'm using CS3 on Tiger. No problems.
--
-- Lou Pecora
dorayme
Lou Pecora <pec...@anvil.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
The model of Intel Macbook?
--
dorayme
Király
> It is as if you are saying there is no other way to deliver patches and
> extras to assist a DVD install... Surely not?
It may be technically possible for them to develop and release some such
thing, which users could download and then use with their existing
Leopard DVD to burn some new bootable Leopard install DVD that will work
with the new hardware.
But I imagine that the number of people who want to buy a new Mac and
then erase the OS and replace it with an old discontinued OS version are
in a tiny, tiny minority. Not worth Apple's time. For that very small
number of users there already exists a workable solution - the used Mac
market.
dorayme
m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:
This is not as good a workable solution because it then makes the day
one has to get more modern machinery come sooner and at greater expense.
We do not know the number of people who would like new hardware with its
power advantages who would like the ability to delay upgrading their
expensive software considering it suits their every little need.
Capitalist economies tend to embed a distasteful and wasteful
obsoleteness in their goods. I don't like it. Please don't tell me what
I should *have* done. I have done it and you are now all responsible for
helping me get the best value out of my $2000 purchase. I want you to
concentrate on my future, not my miserable and wretched and shameful
past. <g>
--
dorayme
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> This is not as good a workable solution because it then makes the day
> one has to get more modern machinery come sooner and at greater expense.
you do realize that apple is in business to sell computers, not coddle
people who want to stick with years old systems, right?
what is the benefit to them to do something that will make you *less*
likely to buy their products?
> We do not know the number of people who would like new hardware with its
> power advantages who would like the ability to delay upgrading their
> expensive software considering it suits their every little need.
nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade. if you want to stay with an older
system, don't buy a new mac. it's much cheaper. the drawback is you may
not be able to run the latest and greatest software. however, you
mentioned photoshop - that still works on powerpc macs, so no problem
there.
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-8DE...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > This is not as good a workable solution because it then makes the day
> > one has to get more modern machinery come sooner and at greater expense.
>
> you do realize that apple is in business to sell computers, not coddle
> people who want to stick with years old systems, right?
I understand that companies in a capitalist system can sometimes do
whatever possible to advance their own interests (narrowly conceived and
in the short term) and no more.
Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old
systems. My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to
run perfectly adequate older software on. It is bad enough having to
fork out for a machine, why not design to allow flexibility and do
something nice for the world while making money. They did it with my
Quicksilver. They did not die horribly and they made a whole lot of folk
happy.
I am not impressed by your gullible acceptance of greedy capitalist
ploys. At least do a little screaming, don't just lie down and let the
tanks roll over you! Be a man, not a cowardly clerkish mouse!
--
dorayme
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old
> systems.
then don't. do you understand that upgrading is not always simple?
> My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to
> run perfectly adequate older software on.
old software runs just fine, including powerpc apps you might still
have. classic is gone, but that happened a few years ago with intel
macs.
> It is bad enough having to
> fork out for a machine, why not design to allow flexibility and do
> something nice for the world while making money. They did it with my
> Quicksilver. They did not die horribly and they made a whole lot of folk
> happy.
even the quicksilver only went back so far. could it run macos 8?
7.6.1? 6.0.4? nope. apple is not going to support their systems
forever, and no matter where the cutoff is, there will *always* be
someone on the other side.
> I am not impressed by your gullible acceptance of greedy capitalist
> ploys. At least do a little screaming, don't just lie down and let the
> tanks roll over you! Be a man, not a cowardly clerkish mouse!
whatever.
4-2-0
removed in Snow.
Memory leaks are no more. It have been running for 7 days without a boot
and only 800M of my 2B used. Previously, it would creep towards the 1.5G
used within this same time period.
It also freed up 15G of disk space. I have no idea of what, some have
said they lost tons of iTunes songs. But I don't see that happening. I
can account for everything.
Xcode 3.2.1 is absolutely the development platform required right now;
another product made more streamlined by stripping out unused crud.
The iPhone SDK has grown to 2.5G of a download, while the Mac-only SDK
is ~790M. Same code, just different libs.
I wonder what the next animal will be?
In article <eric-24E88A.2...@news.iinet.net.au>,
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-4EB...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old
> > systems.
>
> then don't. do you understand that upgrading is not always simple?
Yes, the good old days were simple. When I moved to X I still could use
9 apps in Classic, I could even boot into 9. I could use quite old
versions of PS going back to 4... I rashly moved to CS to avoid the
bother of firing up classic. I was wild and bold in those days...
Now, Intel macs can run Windows with Fusion, and run it very well. But
ask it to run a perfectly good Mac program that is more than two seconds
old and one is involved in deep discussions about Capitalism, Planned
Obsolescence and so on..... <g>
Leave it be nospam, we are not going to get anywhere.
--
dorayme
Paul Goodman
[SNIP]
> Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old
> systems. My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to
> run perfectly adequate older software on.
[SNIP]
Then the people that code the perfectly older software should make sure
that their software is compatible with the new operating system. They
can send out a patch that works. That is not Apple's responsibility.
--
Paul Goodman
dorayme
Paul Goodman <good...@comcast.net> wrote:
No one wants to take any responsibility for anything. Best system in the
world, capitalist economies, pity about some of its ugly sides. There
will be some changes when I am ruler of the world.
--
dorayme
Eric
> In article <020120101629568261%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old
> systems. My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to
> run perfectly adequate older software on. It is bad enough having to
> fork out for a machine, why not design to allow flexibility and do
> something nice for the world while making money. They did it with my
> Quicksilver. They did not die horribly and they made a whole lot of folk
> happy.
I have been busy today downloading betas (Chrome) and pre-betas (Opera)
and anything else new and shiny. I better go download some WebKit
nightly builds. More new software! I don't want anything on my computer
that is older than a half hour. Old software should go off and die.
> I am not impressed by your gullible acceptance of greedy capitalist
> ploys. At least do a little screaming, don't just lie down and let the
> tanks roll over you! Be a man, not a cowardly clerkish mouse!
Too late. I was so impressed by shiny new Apple stuff glistening in the
Apple Store that I bought two of them. If the iMac had a matte display,
I would have bought that too!
D Finnigan
>
> The iPhone SDK has grown to 2.5G of a download, while the Mac-only SDK
>
> is ~790M. Same code, just different libs.
One should be aware that iPhone SDK includes all of Xcode, thus
accounting for the inflated size.
Lou Pecora
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
It's a Mac Book Pro. 2.33 GHz, Dual Core Intel. Does that matter?
--
-- Lou Pecora
dorayme
Lou Pecora <pec...@anvil.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-F9C...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <pecora-09DC91....@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> > Lou Pecora <pec...@anvil.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <010120101317290423%r...@nospam.techline.com>,
> > > "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <doraymeRidThis-848...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > > dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know what the earliest mac versions of
> > > > >
> > > > > Photoshop,
> > > > > Illustrator,
> > > > > Indesign,
> > > > > Macromedia Flash
> > > > > Macromedia Fireworks
> > > > > Adobe Acrobat Pro
> > > > >
> > > > > work, straight off with no hard problems to fix
> > > > >
> > > > > on latest Macbook running Snow Leapard?
> > > >
> > > > I have and am using CS3 with Snow Leopard. I don't think Adobe
> > > > recommends anything earlier.
> > >
> > > I'm using CS3 on Tiger. No problems.
> >
> > The model of Intel Macbook?
>
> It's a Mac Book Pro. 2.33 GHz, Dual Core Intel. Does that matter?
Not enough information. What model exactly, year etc. Yes, its crucial.
See thread. Perhaps you are missing David E's excellent posts? Mine is
(presumably - it is still to arrive) the latest Macbook (not the Pro).
I *assume* that if you are using CS3 OK it will work on mine but who
knows? The information I am getting on this from this Usenet group does
not fill me with confidence that any software more than 2 seconds old
will work on any Apple product that is less than 1 second old. <g>
--
dorayme
David Empson
This sub-thread appears to have diverged on a point of confusion.
Mr Strat commented that Adobe doesn't recommend running anything earlier
than CS3 on Snow Leopard. (They actually say they haven't tested
anything earlier, so they won't comment either way.)
Lou Pecora seemed to misinterpret Mr Strat's comment as claiming that
Adobe didn't recommend running CS3 on anything earlier than Snow Leopard
(clearly wrong, since CS3 predates Snow Leopard by a couple of years),
and mentioned that he is running CS3 on Tiger.
dorayme then seems to have not noticed that Lou mentioned Tiger instead
of Snow Leopard. The computer that Lou is using to run CS3 on Tiger is
not particularly relevant to dorayme wanting to run some old version of
CS on Snow Leopard.
Or did Lou actually mean Snow Leopard and the Tiger reference was a
temporary brain fade?
dorayme - which version of CS do you actually have? If it is CS3, then
Adobe's site mentions a few specific issues.
If you have CS1 or CS2 then you will have to rely on anecodatal
information from elsewhere, such as:
http://snowleopard.wikidot.com/
which has user-supplied comments that CS1 and CS2 work on Snow Leopard
under Rosetta.
(I wouldn't bet on them continuing to work under 10.7, as it may drop
Rosetta.)
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
dorayme
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> dorayme then seems to have not noticed that Lou mentioned Tiger instead
> of Snow Leopard.
Actually I did notice this and I thought hello, this is not helpful to
me. But then maybe I forgot it. My very first post asking the question
was all I wanted to know at that stage:
"Does anyone know what the earliest mac versions of
Photoshop,
Illustrator,
Indesign,
Macromedia Flash
Macromedia Fireworks
Adobe Acrobat Pro
work, straight off with no hard problems to fix
on latest Macbook running Snow Leapard?
If no one knows this for sure, what versions of any of these have proved
to work on your machines."
meaning on late model machines or *at least ones running snow*
> The computer that Lou is using to run CS3 on Tiger is
> not particularly relevant to dorayme wanting to run some old version of
> CS on Snow Leopard.
>
Correct.
>
> dorayme - which version of CS do you actually have? If it is CS3, then
> Adobe's site mentions a few specific issues.
>
CS. The first to run native for OS X. and I am perfectly happy with it.
> If you have CS1 or CS2 then you will have to rely on anecodatal
> information from elsewhere, such as:
>
> http://snowleopard.wikidot.com/
>
> which has user-supplied comments that CS1 and CS2 work on Snow Leopard
> under Rosetta.
>
> (I wouldn't bet on them continuing to work under 10.7, as it may drop
> Rosetta.)
Thanks for this last, I will be doing more research but my machine has
yet to arrive and there is no urgency - God, how good this QS of mine
is, I should buy another on eBay!
(Apple have my dough and if any of you spot any Apple execs lounging
about in the sun with drinks etc by pools, tell them to stop spending my
dough so freely and get off their bums and send me my cool white
Macbook, printer etc.)
--
dorayme
Lou Pecora
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <pecora-E6F758....@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> Lou Pecora <pec...@anvil.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
> > In article <doraymeRidThis-F9C...@news.albasani.net>,
> > dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'm using CS3 on Tiger. No problems.
> > >
> > > The model of Intel Macbook?
> >
> > It's a Mac Book Pro. 2.33 GHz, Dual Core Intel. Does that matter?
>
> Not enough information. What model exactly, year etc. Yes, its crucial.
> See thread. Perhaps you are missing David E's excellent posts? Mine is
> (presumably - it is still to arrive) the latest Macbook (not the Pro).
I came in in the middle.
> I *assume* that if you are using CS3 OK it will work on mine but who
> knows? The information I am getting on this from this Usenet group does
> not fill me with confidence that any software more than 2 seconds old
> will work on any Apple product that is less than 1 second old. <g>
Here ya go:
Model Name: MacBook Pro 15"
Model Identifier: MacBookPro2,2
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.33 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Purchased in 2007.
--
-- Lou Pecora
Lou Pecora
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> This sub-thread appears to have diverged on a point of confusion.
>
> Mr Strat commented that Adobe doesn't recommend running anything earlier
> than CS3 on Snow Leopard. (They actually say they haven't tested
> anything earlier, so they won't comment either way.)
>
> Lou Pecora seemed to misinterpret Mr Strat's comment as claiming that
> Adobe didn't recommend running CS3 on anything earlier than Snow Leopard
> (clearly wrong, since CS3 predates Snow Leopard by a couple of years),
> and mentioned that he is running CS3 on Tiger.
>
> dorayme then seems to have not noticed that Lou mentioned Tiger instead
> of Snow Leopard. The computer that Lou is using to run CS3 on Tiger is
> not particularly relevant to dorayme wanting to run some old version of
> CS on Snow Leopard.
>
> Or did Lou actually mean Snow Leopard and the Tiger reference was a
> temporary brain fade?
No I meant Tiger. Seems I never picked up the actual topic. Sorry to
add confusion.
--
-- Lou Pecora