Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

Kathleen McGuinness

McGraphics Design
Creative Design Solutions for Print and Web
(626) 799-2195
South Pasadena CA
http://www.mcgraphics.us

The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
(we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
(aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!

- Dov

> -----Original Message-----
> From: InDesign Kat
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
>
> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?
>
> Kathleen McGuinness

I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I fear
the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on Adobes
lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then they are
perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to leopard in
plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to listen or
heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote me here,
but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read awhile back.
I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I note increasing
signs that Adobes support for product support is waning with focus on
newer versions to get more of your money. I think that when your
talking a professional version of said software there is or should be
an expectation of support for that product for a longer period of time
then it takes Adobe to release new versions. Quite honestly I wonder
if class action lawsuit is on order and I don't see it against Apple.
On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:

> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
> (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
> (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
> iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
> been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
>
> - Dov
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: InDesign Kat
>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
>>
>> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
>> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

Excuse me? That's crazy talk. I don't usually get involved in
discussions like this but ... please! Software that works beautifully
until a new OS release causes it to become wonky ... is Adobe's fault??

Maybe time for your nap, Dave.


Peter



On 9-Jun-08, at 6:12 PM, Dave Miers wrote:

> I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I
> fear the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on
> Adobes lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then
> they are perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to
> leopard in plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to
> listen or heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote
> me here, but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read
> awhile back. I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I
> note increasing signs that Adobes support for product support is
> waning with focus on newer versions to get more of your money. I
> think that when your talking a professional version of said software
> there is or should be an expectation of support for that product for
> a longer period of time then it takes Adobe to release new versions.
> Quite honestly I wonder if class action lawsuit is on order and I
> don't see it against Apple.
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>
>> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
>> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
>> (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
>> (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
>> iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
>> been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
>>
>> - Dov
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: InDesign Kat
>>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
>>>
>>> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
>>> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

Dave,

I am very sorry that you somehow think that there is a conspiracy
at Adobe to relieve you of discretionary income via forcing you to
upgrade to get platform support. However, I suspect that you are
more a victim of drinking Cupertino-based Kool-Aid and St. Steve
worship than you are particularly knowledgeable about the topic
at hand.

FACT: Adobe's applications are using OS APIs (application program
interfaces) that Apple claims to fully support in MacOS X. Yes, there
is "Carbon" and "Cocoa" but both APIs are claimed by Apple to be fully
supported in MacOS X 10.5 for 32-bit applications.

FACT: Apple Inc. does in fact fully acknowledge the bugs that result
in problems running various Adobe Creative Suite applications (as well
as some applications from other vendors) to be in their operating
system code. These bugs are allegedly already "fixed" in the
forthcoming "Snow Leopard" (MacOS X 10.6) release -- no, we don't know
the date of that software release but I certainly wouldn't like to see
it rushed given the problems we have with a rushed-out-the-door 10.5.x
-- but not yet fixed in the MacOS X 10.5.x codebase. We would like to
see those bugs fixed by Apple ASAP. (By the way, we do see some evidence
of Mac user pressure on Apple to fix the bugs sooner rather than later.
Maybe some St. Steve worshipers have offered some direct special
supplications to him for relief of these problems! :-) )

FACT: Software in development at Adobe (i.e., the next releases) will
still have these problems with MacOS X 10.5.x until Apple provides the
promised fixes. This is clearly NOT an issue of trying to force our
customer base to a next release of product to alleviate our own bugs!
By the way, a very sizable portion of Adobe's internal user base is
Macintosh-based. Do you think they like these problems any more than
you or I do?

FACT: Adobe continues to spend a tremendous amount of R&D funds to
continue to deal with the Macintosh's continually changing and
upward-incompatible API meanderings as well as hardware and software
development tool environments, very well beyond what we've had to
invest in the Windows based versions of the products. There was the
switch of processors from Motorola 680x00 to PowerPC (remember that
RISC architecture was the absolute ultimate for computing power?).
There was the switch from MacOS 9 (and earlier) to MacOS X as well as
major differences in what would otherwise look like MacOS X
"dot releases." There was yet another switch of processors from
PowerPC to Intel x86 (whatever happened to that ultimate RISC advantage?).
And as part of the switch from PowerPC to Intel x86, Adobe as well as
virtually all larger software providers for the Macintosh needed to throw
out all their existing Macintosh development tools and immediately move
to Apple's XCode environment (and in the meantime, spend thousands of
developer hours helping Apple debug XCode which was let's say a little
short in quality when we absolutely needed it for the x86 migration).
Many millions of dollars of Adobe R&D funds have been spent over the
years accommodating Apple's hardware and operating system meanderings.
All that investment was strictly for purposes of being able to continue
to offer Macintosh versions of Adobe software; not one iota of it was
for new program features or for that matter to fix our own bugs!

FACT: Adobe supports its software for a longer period of time than
it takes Adobe to release new versions. What evidence do you have
otherwise? Adobe Technical Support continues to provide support for
at least one previous version of the applications. However, in the
case of MacOS X 10.5.x, we cannot provide support for issues that
Apple is not able to yet provide support for.

To be honest, no one within Adobe is somehow "happy" with the current
MacOS X 10.5 situation, including our developers, management, and
our own internal user community. If there was a quick fix or even
reasonable workarounds we could supply on our side, we would. But such
quick fixes and reasonable workarounds are simply not available.
(And of course, we need to be careful of doing anything that would
risk compatibility with existing 10.4.x and future 10.6.x users --
that isn't a simple order!)

You want to have fun and waste time with lawyers, go ahead. Any
competent lawyer will likely advise you that you would be better
off spending your time writing letters to Apple to fix their OS
upward-incompatibility problems. As I mentioned, we see some evidence
that user complaints to Apple seem to be rearranging some priorities
as to bugs that get fixed in the next 10.5.x updates. Put the pressure
where it belongs.

- Dov


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Miers
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:13 PM
>
> I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I fear
> the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on Adobes
> lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then they are
> perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to leopard in
> plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to listen or
> heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote me here,
> but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read awhile back.
> I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I note increasing
> signs that Adobes support for product support is waning with focus on
> newer versions to get more of your money. I think that when your
> talking a professional version of said software there is or should be
> an expectation of support for that product for a longer period of time
> then it takes Adobe to release new versions. Quite honestly I wonder
> if class action lawsuit is on order and I don't see it against Apple.
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>
> > The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
> > more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
> > (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
> > (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
> > iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
> > been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
> >
> > - Dov
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: InDesign Kat
> >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
> >>
> >> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
> >> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

Really? Adobe was fully aware and had full access to leopard as it
were when developing CS3. Furthermore Adobe makes claim to it's CS3
software being compatible with Leopard OS X. There is no such
disclaimer as posted by Adobe for CS2 products that plainly says that
product was not developed nor will be supported for Leopard. Compare
product support to technical support for a moment. I personally find
Adobe lacking horribly in this department and cannot help but compare
how Quark lost a good deal of it's market share at one point to
Indesign for this very same reason.

Apple released a new OS that came with no guarantees on third party
vendors compatibility. In order to venture forward some of the
backward compatibility was put on the back burner in order of
precedence. Adobe says yes we support our CS3 software on leopard,
they technically are the only ones that made a guarantee of
functionality on said operating system. So yes if that software is
"wonky" Adobe is the responsible party. Yes I highly support Adobe's
feet be held to the fire to support a product that they took a good
deal our money for.

Disclaimer: These are my own opinions developed from various sources
on the internet which may or may not be factual. More research would
be required to decide if these sources are correct. These opinions are
in part a result of personal contact with Apple support vs Adobe
support. I represent nor have any affiliation with Adobe or Apple
other then being a customer of both parties.
On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Peter Hall wrote:

> Excuse me? That's crazy talk. I don't usually get involved in
> discussions like this but ... please! Software that works
> beautifully until a new OS release causes it to become wonky ... is
> Adobe's fault??
>
> Maybe time for your nap, Dave.
>
>
> Peter

Tell me, when you drive through a pothole and blow out a tire, do you blame
the auto manufacturer?

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: InDesign Talk [mailto:indesign@[Protected]] On Behalf Of Dave
Miers
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:13 PM
To: InDesign Talk
Subject: Re: leopard ok yet

I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I fear
the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on Adobes
lap. <remainder snipped>

I am not upset with Adobe, OR Apple. God isn't writing software. There
have always been glitches and there always will be. My $$$ didn't buy
me a totally perfect system, just a very productive one which has
improved my work experience by an order of magnitude. I want problems
fixed, but let's not get crazy.
BTW, I'm using Leopard with very little difficulty maybe 3 or 4
painful half-hour events in the last year...


On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I am very sorry that you somehow think that there is a conspiracy
> at Adobe to relieve you of discretionary income via forcing you to
> upgrade to get platform support. However, I suspect that you are
> more a victim of drinking Cupertino-based Kool-Aid and St. Steve
> worship than you are particularly knowledgeable about the topic
> at hand.
>
> FACT: Adobe's applications are using OS APIs (application program
> interfaces) that Apple claims to fully support in MacOS X. Yes, there
> is "Carbon" and "Cocoa" but both APIs are claimed by Apple to be fully
> supported in MacOS X 10.5 for 32-bit applications.
>
> FACT: Apple Inc. does in fact fully acknowledge the bugs that result
> in problems running various Adobe Creative Suite applications (as well
> as some applications from other vendors) to be in their operating
> system code. These bugs are allegedly already "fixed" in the
> forthcoming "Snow Leopard" (MacOS X 10.6) release -- no, we don't know
> the date of that software release but I certainly wouldn't like to see
> it rushed given the problems we have with a rushed-out-the-door 10.5.x
> -- but not yet fixed in the MacOS X 10.5.x codebase. We would like to
> see those bugs fixed by Apple ASAP. (By the way, we do see some
> evidence
> of Mac user pressure on Apple to fix the bugs sooner rather than
> later.
> Maybe some St. Steve worshipers have offered some direct special
> supplications to him for relief of these problems! :-) )
>
> FACT: Software in development at Adobe (i.e., the next releases) will
> still have these problems with MacOS X 10.5.x until Apple provides the
> promised fixes. This is clearly NOT an issue of trying to force our
> customer base to a next release of product to alleviate our own bugs!
> By the way, a very sizable portion of Adobe's internal user base is
> Macintosh-based. Do you think they like these problems any more than
> you or I do?
>
> FACT: Adobe continues to spend a tremendous amount of R&D funds to
> continue to deal with the Macintosh's continually changing and
> upward-incompatible API meanderings as well as hardware and software
> development tool environments, very well beyond what we've had to
> invest in the Windows based versions of the products. There was the
> switch of processors from Motorola 680x00 to PowerPC (remember that
> RISC architecture was the absolute ultimate for computing power?).
> There was the switch from MacOS 9 (and earlier) to MacOS X as well as
> major differences in what would otherwise look like MacOS X
> "dot releases." There was yet another switch of processors from
> PowerPC to Intel x86 (whatever happened to that ultimate RISC
> advantage?).
> And as part of the switch from PowerPC to Intel x86, Adobe as well as
> virtually all larger software providers for the Macintosh needed to
> throw
> out all their existing Macintosh development tools and immediately
> move
> to Apple's XCode environment (and in the meantime, spend thousands of
> developer hours helping Apple debug XCode which was let's say a little
> short in quality when we absolutely needed it for the x86 migration).
> Many millions of dollars of Adobe R&D funds have been spent over the
> years accommodating Apple's hardware and operating system meanderings.
> All that investment was strictly for purposes of being able to
> continue
> to offer Macintosh versions of Adobe software; not one iota of it was
> for new program features or for that matter to fix our own bugs!
>
> FACT: Adobe supports its software for a longer period of time than
> it takes Adobe to release new versions. What evidence do you have
> otherwise? Adobe Technical Support continues to provide support for
> at least one previous version of the applications. However, in the
> case of MacOS X 10.5.x, we cannot provide support for issues that
> Apple is not able to yet provide support for.
>
> To be honest, no one within Adobe is somehow "happy" with the current
> MacOS X 10.5 situation, including our developers, management, and
> our own internal user community. If there was a quick fix or even
> reasonable workarounds we could supply on our side, we would. But such
> quick fixes and reasonable workarounds are simply not available.
> (And of course, we need to be careful of doing anything that would
> risk compatibility with existing 10.4.x and future 10.6.x users --
> that isn't a simple order!)
>
> You want to have fun and waste time with lawyers, go ahead. Any
> competent lawyer will likely advise you that you would be better
> off spending your time writing letters to Apple to fix their OS
> upward-incompatibility problems. As I mentioned, we see some evidence
> that user complaints to Apple seem to be rearranging some priorities
> as to bugs that get fixed in the next 10.5.x updates. Put the pressure
> where it belongs.
>
> - Dov
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Miers
>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:13 PM
>>
>> I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I
>> fear
>> the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on Adobes
>> lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then they are
>> perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to leopard in
>> plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to listen or
>> heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote me here,
>> but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read awhile back.
>> I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I note
>> increasing
>> signs that Adobes support for product support is waning with focus on
>> newer versions to get more of your money. I think that when your
>> talking a professional version of said software there is or should be
>> an expectation of support for that product for a longer period of
>> time
>> then it takes Adobe to release new versions. Quite honestly I wonder
>> if class action lawsuit is on order and I don't see it against
>> Apple.
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>>
>>> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
>>> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
>>> (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
>>> (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
>>> iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
>>> been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
>>>
>>> - Dov
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: InDesign Kat
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
>>>>
>>>> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
>>>> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?
>
> --
>
>

Bob

Robert K Severn
Severn Associates
Marketing Services
rsevern@[Protected]

"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny."
--Edmund Burke

No I don't Bob, but your comparing the Tire to who? Apple? And the car
is who? Adobe? That analyzation would be backwards as an OS is more
like the the auto and Adobe is more like the tire being an accessory.
An operating system is released being supposedly up to supporting
certain standards and has certain specs. Adobe and other third party
vendors have the responsibility of staying within these standards. Dov
Isaacs has told us that in the carbon vs cocoa issue apple states
support in full for both for 32 bit applications. The information I
ran across says Apple has been advising vendors including Adobe to
switch from Carbon to Cocoa for some time. Now I freely admit I don't
have a good understanding of the differences between these
technicalities. If apple has not lived up to what they promised then
I suppose they would be at fault. These technical points are beyond a
layperson such as myself. But don't expect either Adobe or Apple to
admit they are at fault as it's much more profitable to blame the
other guy. To me it would be common sense to say that when an OS has
accessories or vendors it's the third party vendors responsibility to
work correctly on the OS they claim it works on.

I suspect Adobe as being the guilty party, but hey, I'm ok with
dragging both of them into court and letting them duke it out. What I
do know is that an answer such as these issues will be fixed in a
future version is NOT acceptable for either Apple or Adobe. The only
time that's an acceptable answer really is when the product is in beta
and is not being charged for.
On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

> Tell me, when you drive through a pothole and blow out a tire, do
> you blame
> the auto manufacturer?

Kat -

There will always be a finger-pointing between OS vendors and
Application developers. In answer to your question of whether it's OK
to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) yet, my opinion is simply
"whenever YOU are ready."

If your existing setup is functioning fine, then don't go through the
time and trouble of upgrading. If there are updates, new features, bug
fixes in the new version that are appealing, then go for it.

My personal behavior has been to 'upgrade' via the purchase of new
hardware. Again, while there ARE those who have experienced problems
with Mac OS X 10.5 and Adobe CS3, there are also others (a majority?)
which have NOT. It simply comes down to being a personal decision for
you to make: to upgrade, or not.

ciao,
Caleb

No, not ok yet.
I believe Adobe is still saying it's Apple's fault... ;-)
I use Strata 3D. There were problems with the OS APIs... there's been
an upgrade of the software to solve the problem, and it's fixed...
Anyway, if it's not ok yet, it is possible to work with it, if you
don't mind to be unable to hide Indesign, and allow it to "disappear"
from time to time (not to often) and thus force quit the application
to relaunch it. Fortunately, the file recovery system of InDesign is
very good.
I touch wood, but I didn't loose any work, only time, since working
with Leopard and Adobe.

Regards
Michel

Le 10-juin-08 à 02:40, Kat a écrit :

> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?
>
> Kathleen McGuinness
>
> McGraphics Design
> Creative Design Solutions for Print and Web
> (626) 799-2195
> South Pasadena CA
> http://www.mcgraphics.us

Here's another FACT Dave: from all the CS4 demos of InDesign I've
seen, it does not have the issues that the current version of InDesign
has running on Leopard (though it may have others). And I wouldn't
worry about Apple draining computer development support and putting it
toward cell phones...they both run the same core operating system. I
mean, it's not like they're building game systems like those monkeys
in Redmond.

-Jamie McKee
MacKey Composition

On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Dave Miers wrote:

> I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I
> fear the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on
> Adobes lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then
> they are perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to
> leopard in plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to
> listen or heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote
> me here, but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read
> awhile back. I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I
> note increasing signs that Adobes support for product support is
> waning with focus on newer versions to get more of your money. I
> think that when your talking a professional version of said software
> there is or should be an expectation of support for that product for
> a longer period of time then it takes Adobe to release new versions.
> Quite honestly I wonder if class action lawsuit is on order and I
> don't see it against Apple.
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>
>> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
>> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
>> (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
>> (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
>> iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
>> been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
>>
>> - Dov
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: InDesign Kat
>>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
>>>
>>> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
>>> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

Dave, I've written extensively about this on my blog. The issues with Leopard are due to problems in Leopard. Apple made this determination. We are eager to address problems in our own code, and have a group of developers dedicated to that very task.

As Apple continues to release updates you will see these issues get addressed.

Sent by GoodLink (www.good.com)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie McKee [mailto:jamiekmckee@[Protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 01:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: InDesign Talk
Subject: Re: leopard ok yet

Here's another FACT Dave: from all the CS4 demos of InDesign I've
seen, it does not have the issues that the current version of InDesign
has running on Leopard (though it may have others). And I wouldn't
worry about Apple draining computer development support and putting it
toward cell phones...they both run the same core operating system. I
mean, it's not like they're building game systems like those monkeys
in Redmond.

-Jamie McKee
MacKey Composition

On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Dave Miers wrote:

> I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I
> fear the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on
> Adobes lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then
> they are perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to
> leopard in plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to
> listen or heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote
> me here, but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read
> awhile back. I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I
> note increasing signs that Adobes support for product support is
> waning with focus on newer versions to get more of your money. I
> think that when your talking a professional version of said software
> there is or should be an expectation of support for that product for
> a longer period of time then it takes Adobe to release new versions.
> Quite honestly I wonder if class action lawsuit is on order and I
> don't see it against Apple.
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>
>> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
>> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
>> (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
>> (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
>> iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
>> been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
>>
>> - Dov
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: InDesign Kat
>>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
>>>
>>> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
>>> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

It's remarks like this that absolutely amaze me. Why the blind faith in
Apple and the deep hatred of Microsoft?

Just for kicks, let's reverse all this and say that the problems being seen
on Leopard were being seen in Vista. And let's say for a minute that
Microsoft refused to sell XP? And finally, lets say a well respected Adobe
employee posted information that said Microsoft acknowledged the problems
were in Vista and "hopefully" they'd get fixed by them in a future, to be
determined service pack.

I have a very funny feeling that the Apple fanatics would be laughing too
hard to get any work done.

FWIW, I'm not Microsoft fanatic and I'm not laughing. In fact, I'm about due
for a new laptop and I'm considering a Macbook. I think the whole situation
sucks. While the majority of Leopard users aren't seeing any deal breaking
behavior there are folks out there with major problems.

And one more thing, if memory serves me correctly, Leopard's released was
quite a bit late because of resources being moved to the iPhone.

Bob (who's hoping against hope, this doesn't turn into a platform war)

-----Original Message-----
From: InDesign Talk [mailto:indesign@[Protected]] On Behalf Of Jamie
McKee
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 4:58 AM
To: InDesign Talk
Subject: Re: leopard ok yet

Here's another FACT Dave: from all the CS4 demos of InDesign I've
seen, it does not have the issues that the current version of InDesign
has running on Leopard (though it may have others). And I wouldn't
worry about Apple draining computer development support and putting it
toward cell phones...they both run the same core operating system. I
mean, it's not like they're building game systems like those monkeys
in Redmond.

-Jamie McKee
MacKey Composition

I'm comparing the entire car to InDesign and the highway to Leopard. The car
was built to handle normal well constructed roads. You've seen all those
commercials for cars and trucks that get beat to hell and the fine print
states that doing this with your vehicle will void the warranty, haven't
you?

Well, run InDesign on Tiger and you won't see the same problem as Leopard.

Drive the car on a well maintained road and you won't see the same problems
as driving it on one filled with potholes.

And good luck suing either party.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: InDesign Talk [mailto:indesign@[Protected]] On Behalf Of Dave
Miers
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:11 PM
To: InDesign Talk
Subject: Re: leopard ok yet

No I don't Bob, but your comparing the Tire to who? Apple? And the car
is who? Adobe? That analyzation would be backwards as an OS is more
like the the auto and Adobe is more like the tire being an accessory.
An operating system is released being supposedly up to supporting
certain standards and has certain specs. Adobe and other third party
vendors have the responsibility of staying within these standards. Dov
Isaacs has told us that in the carbon vs cocoa issue apple states
support in full for both for 32 bit applications. The information I
ran across says Apple has been advising vendors including Adobe to
switch from Carbon to Cocoa for some time. Now I freely admit I don't
have a good understanding of the differences between these
technicalities. If apple has not lived up to what they promised then
I suppose they would be at fault. These technical points are beyond a
layperson such as myself. But don't expect either Adobe or Apple to
admit they are at fault as it's much more profitable to blame the
other guy. To me it would be common sense to say that when an OS has
accessories or vendors it's the third party vendors responsibility to
work correctly on the OS they claim it works on.

I suspect Adobe as being the guilty party, but hey, I'm ok with
dragging both of them into court and letting them duke it out. What I
do know is that an answer such as these issues will be fixed in a
future version is NOT acceptable for either Apple or Adobe. The only
time that's an acceptable answer really is when the product is in beta
and is not being charged for.
On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

> Tell me, when you drive through a pothole and blow out a tire, do
> you blame
> the auto manufacturer?
>
>


--

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.1.0/1492 - Release Date: 6/9/2008
10:29 AM

On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bob Levine wrote:

> I'm comparing the entire car to InDesign and the highway to Leopard.
> The car
> was built to handle normal well constructed roads. You've seen all
> those
> commercials for cars and trucks that get beat to hell and the fine
> print
> states that doing this with your vehicle will void the warranty,
> haven't
> you?
>
> Well, run InDesign on Tiger and you won't see the same problem as
> Leopard.
>
> Drive the car on a well maintained road and you won't see the same
> problems
> as driving it on one filled with potholes.


The problem w/ that analogy is there are a lot of other vehicles on
the road that these potholes don't affect.

That said, ID CS3 is ~350MB (and the plug-in folder is over 100MB) ---
it's one of the largest, most complex and best-performing applications
out there, it's not surprising that they had to work hard to eke every
bit out of what Mac OS X (and I'm sure there's similar optimization
for Windows) could provide, so it's not surprising that a substantial
change in the underlying architecture reveals some of the
underpinnings. The penalty for being on the bleeding edge.

It is unfortunate that Apple doesn't have a policy of providing older
versions of the OS for some fixed amount of time (esp. since they were
willing to make a special exemption for OS 9 for Quark's sake), and
I'm certain Adobe feels quite badly about the (hopefully small)
negative impact this has on their sales (and I feel really badly for
any people who're forced to try Quark or some other layout application
in an effort to avoid this occasional minor difficulty), but in the
grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal, soon there'll be a
new version of OS X and ID CS3 will hide (or not) in a controllable
fashion and shortly after that there'll be a new version of ID....

FWIW, I suspect that one could foreclose on the possibility of losing
some work when ID hides itself in Leopard by running a script which
tells ID to save all open documents, then quit --- rather a shame ID
doesn't have the same extra menus in its Dock icon which AI does.

William


--
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications

FWIW, the same OS problems plaguing InDesign 5 plague versions of
software currently in development at Adobe. There is no "secret fix"
that Adobe has withheld from InDesign 5. And yes, part of the problem
of MacOS X 10.5 was that operating system development resource was
diverted at a critical time prior to OS release to support the iPhone!

- Dov

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamie McKee
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:58 AM
>
> Here's another FACT Dave: from all the CS4 demos of InDesign I've
> seen, it does not have the issues that the current version of InDesign
> has running on Leopard (though it may have others). And I wouldn't
> worry about Apple draining computer development support and putting it
> toward cell phones...they both run the same core operating system. I
> mean, it's not like they're building game systems like those monkeys
> in Redmond.
>
> -Jamie McKee
> MacKey Composition
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Dave Miers wrote:
>
> > I have to say that while I blame none of you for being hopeful, I
> > fear the blame for items that don't work right in Indesign falls on
> > Adobes lap. A lap that is much more interested in creating CS4 then
> > they are perfecting a released product. A lap that had access to
> > leopard in plenty of time to make it work right. A lap that fails to
> > listen or heed Apples warnings about developing for the, don't quote
> > me here, but I think it was called coco gui in the article I read
> > awhile back. I'm not saying Apples Leopard was or is perfect, but I
> > note increasing signs that Adobes support for product support is
> > waning with focus on newer versions to get more of your money. I
> > think that when your talking a professional version of said software
> > there is or should be an expectation of support for that product for
> > a longer period of time then it takes Adobe to release new versions.
> > Quite honestly I wonder if class action lawsuit is on order and I
> > don't see it against Apple.
> > On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Dov Isaacs wrote:
> >
> >> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
> >> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
> >> (we don't have dates for these). The Apple Developer's Conference
> >> (aka St. Steve of Cupertino lovefest) seems to be primarily about
> >> iPhones - much of Apple's OS development support appears to have
> >> been drained towards support of MacOS X in cell phones!
> >>
> >> - Dov
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: InDesign Kat
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:40 PM
> >>>
> >>> Now that the Apple conference is in progress anybody heard whether
> >>> it's ok to upgrade to leopard yet?

We're on an older G5 and a G4. My partner wants the G5 because the G4
is stone age slow, crashes, etc. And using ai on the G5 is terribly
slow, too. Doing a lot of long docs in idd, I'm just concerned that
I'll get an intel With leopard but no way am I putting on an older
system on a new machine.

So thanks for the grounded view, Caleb.

kat
On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Caleb Clauset wrote:

> Kat -
>
> There will always be a finger-pointing between OS vendors and
> Application developers. In answer to your question of whether it's
> OK to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) yet, my opinion is simply
> "whenever YOU are ready."
>
> If your existing setup is functioning fine, then don't go through
> the time and trouble of upgrading. If there are updates, new
> features, bug fixes in the new version that are appealing, then go
> for it.
>
> My personal behavior has been to 'upgrade' via the purchase of new
> hardware. Again, while there ARE those who have experienced
> problems with Mac OS X 10.5 and Adobe CS3, there are also others (a
> majority?) which have NOT. It simply comes down to being a personal
> decision for you to make: to upgrade, or not.
>
> ciao,
> Caleb

For what it's worth, I had been using a G5 iMac with CS 2 and 10.5 (which was installed last October, when it went on sale) until about a month ago -- when I bought one of the (then-new) iMac models, and then upgraded to CS 3 not too long after that.

To date, the one and only issue I've had has been with either version of InDesign disappearing (in 10.5) when hidden -- and I haven't experienced that problem any more or less than I did with the G5 (and that wasn't all that often to begin with). I'm aware of it, so I'm very careful (and a bit compulsive) about saving my files.

BRIAN/brian@[Protected]



On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:32:21 -0700, Kat wrote:
> We're on an older G5 and a G4. My partner wants the G5 because the G4 is stone age slow, crashes,
> etc. And using ai on the G5 is terribly slow, too. Doing a lot of long docs in idd, I'm just
> concerned that I'll get an intel With leopard but no way am I putting on an older system on a new
> machine.
>
> So thanks for the grounded view, Caleb.
>
> kat
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Caleb Clauset wrote:
>
>> Kat -
>>
>> There will always be a finger-pointing between OS vendors and Application developers. In answer
>> to your question of whether it's OK to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) yet, my opinion is
>> simply "whenever YOU are ready."
>>
>> If your existing setup is functioning fine, then don't go through the time and trouble of
>> upgrading. If there are updates, new features, bug fixes in the new version that are appealing,
>> then go for it.
>>
>> My personal behavior has been to 'upgrade' via the purchase of new hardware. Again, while there
>> ARE those who have experienced problems with Mac OS X 10.5 and Adobe CS3, there are also others
>> (a majority?) which have NOT. It simply comes down to being a personal decision for you to make:
>> to upgrade, or not.
>>
>> ciao,
>> Caleb

they whom i call Dov Isaacs wrote:
> The MacOS X 10.5.3 update didn't fix the problems. Some
> more fixes are expected in the 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 updates
> (we don't have dates for these).

because the terms of use for the new iPhone (due 11 July) state
that 10.4.11 or 10.5.4 is required, expect 10.5.4 before then; no
idea what exactly 10.5.4 will do for Adobe apps

On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Brian Pearce wrote:

> For what it's worth, I had been using a G5 iMac with CS 2 and 10.5
> (which was installed last October, when it went on sale) until about
> a month ago -- when I bought one of the (then-new) iMac models, and
> then upgraded to CS 3 not too long after that.
>
> To date, the one and only issue I've had has been with either
> version of InDesign disappearing (in 10.5) when hidden -- and I
> haven't experienced that problem any more or less than I did with
> the G5 (and that wasn't all that often to begin with). I'm aware of
> it, so I'm very careful (and a bit compulsive) about saving my files.
>
> BRIAN/brian@[Protected]
>
That has been my experience, except that I'm still on the G5 (BTW, I
will also go to a 24" iMac before long) The only issue I have is that
ID cannot be hidden. The workaround is to just collapse the active
window, or windows. Not the same, but it works.
I cannot recall ID failing to "come back" when required. Maybe I'm
just lucky.
I don't even try to hide ID anymore. The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result.

Bob

Robert K Severn
Severn Associates
Marketing Services
rsevern@[Protected]

Everyone thinks I'm psychotic, except for my friends deep inside the
earth.

My G5 (dual 2gb) is not slow. Almost as fast as my Intel MacBook. How
much memory have you got?

On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Kat wrote:

> We're on an older G5 and a G4. My partner wants the G5 because the
> G4 is stone age slow, crashes, etc. And using ai on the G5 is
> terribly slow, too. Doing a lot of long docs in idd, I'm just
> concerned that I'll get an intel With leopard but no way am I
> putting on an older system on a new machine.
>
> So thanks for the grounded view, Caleb.
>
> kat
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Caleb Clauset wrote:
>
>> Kat -
>>
>> There will always be a finger-pointing between OS vendors and
>> Application developers. In answer to your question of whether it's
>> OK to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) yet, my opinion is simply
>> "whenever YOU are ready."
>>
>> If your existing setup is functioning fine, then don't go through
>> the time and trouble of upgrading. If there are updates, new
>> features, bug fixes in the new version that are appealing, then go
>> for it.
>>
>> My personal behavior has been to 'upgrade' via the purchase of new
>> hardware. Again, while there ARE those who have experienced
>> problems with Mac OS X 10.5 and Adobe CS3, there are also others (a
>> majority?) which have NOT. It simply comes down to being a personal
>> decision for you to make: to upgrade, or not.
>>
>> ciao,
>> Caleb
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>

Bob

Robert K Severn
Severn Associates
Marketing Services
rsevern@[Protected]

"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny."
--Edmund Burke

On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Robert Severn wrote:

> My G5 (dual 2gb) is not slow.


> Almost as fast as my Intel MacBook. How much memory have you got?
1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.

kat
>


McGraphics Design
Creative Design Solutions for Print and Web
(626) 799-2195
South Pasadena CA
http://www.mcgraphics.us

On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Brian Pearce wrote:

> For what it's worth, I had been using a G5 iMac with CS 2 and 10.5
> (which was installed last October, when it went on sale) until
> about a month ago -- when I bought one of the (then-new) iMac
> models, and then upgraded to CS 3 not too long after that.
>
> To date, the one and only issue I've had has been with either
> version of InDesign disappearing (in 10.5) when hidden -- and I
> haven't experienced that problem any more or less than I did with
> the G5 (and that wasn't all that often to begin with).
I thought I was kidding about losing files. You mean they actually
have disappeared?
> I'm aware of it, so I'm very careful (and a bit compulsive) about
> saving my files.
>
> Kathleen McGuinness

Hmmmm...I've never had any problems with "AI" with my 1.67 Ghz G4
powerbook 1.5GB ram or my imac with 2.1 Ghz G5 and 1.5 GB of ram. CS2
and CS3 are fine speed wise. Sounds like there is something else wrong.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Kat wrote:

> 1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.

> I thought I was kidding about losing files. You mean they actually have disappeared?

I've never lost any *files* -- but there is a bug that occurs, under some circumstances, if you "Hide" the program. It doesn't come back, and the only way to get it back is to force-quit. In my use, it's been more irritating than damaging, but others may have had different experience.

BRIAN/brian@[Protected]



On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:37:56 -0700, Kat wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Brian Pearce wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I had been using a G5 iMac with CS 2 and 10.5 (which was installed last
>> October, when it went on sale) until about a month ago -- when I bought one of the (then-new)
>> iMac models, and then upgraded to CS 3 not too long after that.
>>
>> To date, the one and only issue I've had has been with either version of InDesign disappearing
>> (in 10.5) when hidden -- and I haven't experienced that problem any more or less than I did with
>> the G5 (and that wasn't all that often to begin with).
> I thought I was kidding about losing files. You mean they actually have disappeared?
>> I'm aware of it, so I'm very careful (and a bit compulsive) about saving my files.
>>
>> Kathleen McGuinness

On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Kat wrote:

> On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Robert Severn wrote:
>
>> My G5 (dual 2gb) is not slow.
>
>
>> Almost as fast as my Intel MacBook. How much memory have you got?
> 1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.

Apparently, the dual 2 ghz is pretty fast. (I've only got 2 GB of
memory).


Bob

On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Dave Miers wrote:

> Hmmmm...I've never had any problems with "AI" with my 1.67 Ghz G4
> powerbook 1.5GB ram or my imac with 2.1 Ghz G5 and 1.5 GB of ram.
> CS2 and CS3 are fine speed wise. Sounds like there is something
> else wrong.
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Kat wrote:
>
>> 1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.
>
>
That's what I thought. I don't remember ILLY being slow on my G3.

Bob Severn

Hi Everyone ... a newbie....
I talked to the area/regional manager for Abobe products here when we
had an adobe seminar about CS3 when it came out. I mentioned that CS2
was awful, too slow to open and would create ghost (corrupted) file
names that would not match up with the original file, would it be the
same in CS3 or improved?
I was not a fan of illustrator but got pushed into it from my favourite
Freehand. It still doesnt Freehand in some aspects... but I now love
illustrator too.

Using CS2 it was crap. I mentioned this to him and he said there were
definately issues with certain patches or sub-upgrades, he had a
solution but when I emailed him for it I lost touch with him. Never
mind.

CS3 is much better and havent had any crashes yet or funnies except
sometimes when it decides to take extra time closing... that makes me
nervous.
I use an ACER Veriton, Quad 4 I think.... pretty fast apparently...

On my laptop, at home a Toshiba Satellite 17"Celeron everything is
brilliant, fast and NEVER a problem... CS2 or CS3.

Cheers
Alec

-----Original Message-----
From: InDesign Talk [mailto:indesign@[Protected]] On Behalf Of
Robert Severn
Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2008 1:05 PM
To: InDesign Talk
Subject: Re: leopard ok yet


On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Dave Miers wrote:

> Hmmmm...I've never had any problems with "AI" with my 1.67 Ghz G4
> powerbook 1.5GB ram or my imac with 2.1 Ghz G5 and 1.5 GB of ram.
> CS2 and CS3 are fine speed wise. Sounds like there is something
> else wrong.
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Kat wrote:
>
>> 1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.
>
>
That's what I thought. I don't remember ILLY being slow on my G3.

Bob Severn

On Jun 10, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Brian Pearce wrote:

> I've never lost any *files* -- but there is a bug that occurs, under
> some circumstances, if you "Hide" the program. It doesn't come back,
> and the only way to get it back is to force-quit. In my use, it's
> been more irritating than damaging, but others may have had
> different experience.


IME, it's not even that you choose to hide it, but that certain
interactions (dragging a file to the app icon to open it is one which
I recall distinctly), will at random times, result in the application
hiding itself so that one cannot interact w/ it.

I've always just taken a break (to allow time for the app to store the
restore data) then force quit it, then re-opened it and it's
reconstructed files back to where they were.

As I noted in a previous message, I believe that it would still accept
commands from a script, so one that told it to save all open documents
and quit might be a solution (if one is careful to always work so that
saving is okay), but the problem hasn't happened to me recently so I
haven't had a chance to test it out.

There's a separate issue where bringing up file dialog boxes will
crash it, but there's a work-around for that one, and it seems one
possible occurrence has been fixed in 10.5.3:

http://blogs.adobe.com/indesignchannel/2008/05/leopard_alert_1053_contains_fi.html

William

--
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications

Le 11-juin-08 à 13:19, William Adams a écrit :

>
> As I noted in a previous message, I believe that it would still
> accept commands from a script, so one that told it to save all open
> documents and quit might be a solution (if one is careful to always
> work so that saving is okay), but the problem hasn't happened to me
> recently so I haven't had a chance to test it out.

It works for the saving of documents, but not for the quit the
application.

Michel

they whom i call Michel Raj wrote:
> Le 11-juin-08  13:19, William Adams a crit :
>
>>
>> As I noted in a previous message, I believe that it would still accept
>> commands from a script, so one that told it to save all open documents
>> and quit might be a solution (if one is careful to always work so that
>> saving is okay), but the problem hasn't happened to me recently so I
>> haven't had a chance to test it out.
>
> It works for the saving of documents, but not for the quit the application.

you can also force-quit an application from a script

That's good news :-)
but what is the command to do so ?

Michel

Le 11-juin-08 à 18:02, steve harley a écrit :

> they whom i call Michel Raj wrote:
>> Le 11-juin-08 à 13:19, William Adams a écrit :
>>>
>>> As I noted in a previous message, I believe that it would still
>>> accept commands from a script, so one that told it to save all
>>> open documents and quit might be a solution (if one is careful to
>>> always work so that saving is okay), but the problem hasn't
>>> happened to me recently so I haven't had a chance to test it out.
>> It works for the saving of documents, but not for the quit the
>> application.
>
> you can also force-quit an application from a script

they whom i call Michel Raj wrote:
> That's good news :-)
> but what is the command to do so ?

do shell script "killall 'Adobe InDesign CS3'"

but it would be cleaner to try to quit first:

-- after saving open documents ...
set app_name to "Adobe InDesign CS3"
tell application app_name to quit
delay 5 -- see if it quits normally
tell application "System Events"
if (name of processes) contains app_name then
do shell script "killall '" & app_name & "'"
end if
end tell

Thank's Steve !

Michel

Le 11-juin-08 à 18:32, steve harley a écrit :

> they whom i call Michel Raj wrote:
>> That's good news :-)
>> but what is the command to do so ?
>
> do shell script "killall 'Adobe InDesign CS3'"
>
> but it would be cleaner to try to quit first:
>
> -- after saving open documents ...
> set app_name to "Adobe InDesign CS3"
> tell application app_name to quit
> delay 5 -- see if it quits normally
> tell application "System Events"
> if (name of processes) contains app_name then
> do shell script "killall '" & app_name & "'"
> end if
> end tell

This file I'm working on is 20mg and the image is yet to come.
Particularly the save is slow, almost a full minute. And serious
effects redraw is no fun either.

kat

On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Dave Miers wrote:

> Hmmmm...I've never had any problems with "AI" with my 1.67 Ghz G4
> powerbook 1.5GB ram or my imac with 2.1 Ghz G5 and 1.5 GB of ram.
> CS2 and CS3 are fine speed wise. Sounds like there is something
> else wrong.
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Kat wrote:
>
>> 1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.

On Jun 11, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Kat wrote:

> This file I'm working on is 20mg and the image is yet to come.
> Particularly the save is slow, almost a full minute. And serious
> effects redraw is no fun either.
>
> kat
>
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Dave Miers wrote:
>
>> Hmmmm...I've never had any problems with "AI" with my 1.67 Ghz G4
>> powerbook 1.5GB ram or my imac with 2.1 Ghz G5 and 1.5 GB of ram.
>> CS2 and CS3 are fine speed wise. Sounds like there is something
>> else wrong.
>> On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Kat wrote:
>>
>>> 1.6GHZ, 4GB. But working in .ai is gruesomely slow.
>>
>
I just opened a 10 mb file on my old G3 iBook. It was not exactly
zippy, but nothing even close to as slow as you are experiencing.
Something weird is happening.


Bob

Robert Severn
rsevern@[Protected]

I have a photographic memory but it's undeveloped.