OS X Lion breaks Adobe products including Photoshop, Flash

The war between Apple and Adobe appears to be continuing. Last year, Apple continuously fired pot shots at Adobe claiming their Flash software causes bad performance, and subsequently announced it would never support the products on the iPhone or iPad, nor would it allow applications that use workarounds to enable it. Adobe responded by launching a "We <3 Apple" and "We <3 Choice" campaign which was targeted directly at Apple's attitude towards its products.

Now, it appears Apple has taken another step to push Adobe away from its platforms. Early reports incorrectly suggested that Apple had disabled GPU support for Flash Player in all browsers. However, the Adobe support page reports that there is an issue where "Flash Player may cause higher CPU activity when playing a YouTube video" but this is a seperate issue, and hardware acceleration has not been disabled. Neowin has heard multiple reports of users having their entire OS crash when the software is used in a browser.

Venture Beat reports that Adobe is listing issues with Acrobat, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash Builder, Flash Catalyst, Illustrator, Lightroom, Photoshop, and Premiere Pro. Apparently, some older programs will no longer run at all, such as Flash Builder and Catalyst which are listed as "will not work on OS X 10.7." Adobe says it doesn't plan on updating the programs to work on the platform. 

Other issues affect the massively popular Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator software, with the "droplets" feature being broken in Photoshop CS3, CS4 and CS5. On top of this, in Illustrator CS5, save or export is disabled from the "Save As" and "Export" dialog when saving to the desktop. In Adobe Lightroom, Nikon cameras are having issues with tethered shooting, with Adobe's only workaround being "remain on Mac OS 10.6.7 until the issue is resolved." Adobe Lightroom 2.7 is now no longer listed as "working."

Finally, the Adobe Reader plugins are no longer compatible with Safari 5.1, with the support website saying that Safari 5.1 replaces Adobe's plugins and can render PDF documents natively. The software still works as a standalone solution, but may cause issues with LiveCycle and Acrobat where they expect the plugin. Adobe says that users should continue using OS X 10.6 until the problem is resolved.

It's puzzling as to why so many issues are in this release of OS X. Previously, Adobe and Apple worked closely on new releases to ensure that their products worked seamlessly and caused no issues. Venture Beat points out that software developers are given access to beta versions of Apple's upcoming OS to get everything working, yet it seems someone dropped the ball in this case.

Thanks to John Blanton over on Twitter for pointing this out to us!

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Mac OS X Lion downloaded 1 million times in first day

Next Story

Australians to finally get R18+ adult video game rating

145 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

TO ALL:

To those of you who are "upgrading" or are planning to "upgrade" from Snow Leopard to Lion I suggest you avoid all the headaches and simply do a "clean install". I know it's a pain for some of you because of all the data you must have on your Mac, and maybe impossible for others but it is the best thing to do. That way, you avoid the headaches and save time as well. I backed up all my stuff and did a "clean install" because the "upgrade" was a pain.

Adobe this is your light at the end of the tunnel. When APple was ablout to go bankrupted with devs pulling out, you showed YPOUR loyalty by sticking with Apple's dying @$$.

And this is how they choose to thank you? I suggest pulling ALl your products from the Mac platform and even iOS. Don't give them nothing. See what kinda cheap ugly software they cab find to replace your suite.

Show Apple you dont need them PERIOD. There are more users of your products on Windows anyways.

From macrumors.com:

"Adobe has now issued a correction retracting that statement and noting that OS X Lion does in fact offer the same level of hardware acceleration as found in Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous "Known Issue" described in a tech note suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration."

Euphoria said,
Yep, posted above with a direct link to Adobe's website.

Oops, not all the comments had loaded.

Yeah, amazing to see how many people have an agenda, just waiting to unleash all that hate, pretty pathetic really, lol.

3rd impact said,
What will you say now?

uh, that were happy using adobe products on windows 7?

Sure.. when it's working right... it's crashed 100 times when using Chrome or Firefox

If this was MS people would be up in arms taking to the streets in a blind rage. Because its Apple people are like 'oh no its Adobe's fault'.

If it had broken on Windows, people would be shooting MS. Sad really.

dave164 said,
If this was MS people would be up in arms taking to the streets in a blind rage. Because its Apple people are like 'oh no its Adobe's fault'.

If it had broken on Windows, people would be shooting MS. Sad really.

Your talking rubbish.

First of all, this doesn't appear to be a major issue.. i can't even find anyone who's having any issues, everyone who uses adobe+osx in this post has said it's working fine, myself included. I rely on Photoshop and other CS5 s/w every day for work.. if things were broken i'd be the first to complain.

Secondly, how is it Apple's fault? they don't build their OS around every piece of software that is designed for it. Since i upgraded to Lion i can't access my Time Machine backup on my NAS, i can't back up either.. this is frustrating, so are you telling me this is Apple's fault? The BETA has been out for soo long, and now QNAP (the company that develops my NAS) is saying 'updates will be out in a couple of weeks' this statement was posted YESTERDAY - so what have they been doing for the last few months? Now i can't access any of my files as the TM was only backup.

dave164 said,
If this was MS people would be up in arms taking to the streets in a blind rage. Because its Apple people are like 'oh no its Adobe's fault'.
If it had broken on Windows, people would be shooting MS. Sad really.

Um, people ARE in this thread blasting Apple, i think a majority are. If it was broke on windows i wouldnt blame MS, just like im not blaming Apple. This issue is the Fault of Adobe and a majority of companies "fix it in a patch" mentality. But on same token Apple and MS are part of that mentality also.

The days of Works out of the Box, are Long gone sadly

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,

This issue is the Fault of Adobe and a majority of companies "fix it in a patch" mentality. But on same token Apple and MS are part of that mentality also.

The days of Works out of the Box, are Long gone sadly


Erm, it did work out of the box... it broke when Apple released a OS upgrade. Do you not want them to patch it? Because back in the day of "Works out of the Box", they'd just make you buy new software.

I'm not blaming anyone really. **** happens. Apple are busy making an OS, Adobe don't want to aim at a moving target. Seriously, for people who are attacking Adobe, you have no idea how annoying it is to hunt down a bug, create a fix, and then have it become unnecessary (or even causing issues) a few days later.

I don't have any issues with CS5!

To the people above blaming Apple: How is this a fault of Apple? They have had developer previews of Lion for long enough for Adobe to fix up their products. It is not up to Apple to ensure somebody else's software works when they update their system!

The original forum thread discussing the linked article was closed because 1) it was wrong and 2) used sensationalist headlines. The latest version of Photoshop works fine, as does Flash.

Why is this article still here on Neowin?

More sensationalist headlines !!

How about the title 'Adobe behind in Lion Compatibility' or 'Adobe users shouldn't upgrade to Lion Yet'

seriously the topics and titles on Neowin I begin to think are run by kids, but no wait kids would have a clue !

I'm interested to know how many of the haters in this post are actually using Lion and having issues with Adobe products?

Are there any figures of how many people are actually having issues?

I have adobe CS5 suite installed.. i've not experienced any problems with any of the apps, i couldn't work without Photoshop so that not working would be a deal breaker for me, it's working fine though and so is Flash.

The replies in this thread go on like Adobe is doomed on OSX.. the anti-apple folk are pathetic, i don't even understand why they give a **** and are constantly replying in this post?

Although in this case, Adobe is taking the effort to update Creative Suite to work with Lion. When Vista was released and it broke a lot of Creative Suite apps, Adobe just said "Upgrade to a newer compatible version" instead of fixing the older versions.

Thank goodness I haven't upgraded to Lion yet...I think I'll wait until these kind of things get fixed. Well, that's if I bother upgrading at all.

Adobe makes **** products. Always have, always will. They use os hacks to make different features work instead of sticking to guidelines. They do this for both Windows and OSX.

Septimus said,
Adobe makes **** products. Always have, always will. They use os hacks to make different features work instead of sticking to guidelines. They do this for both Windows and OSX.

Thank God for a voice of sanity - you're correct, Adobe products are crap on both Mac OS X and Windows but hey, all the cool kids beat up on Apple these days, the same people who used to beat up on Microsoft and then before that IBM etc. etc.

Septimus said,
Adobe makes **** products. Always have, always will. They use os hacks to make different features work instead of sticking to guidelines. They do this for both Windows and OSX.

You ever seen Apple products running on Windows?

Mac Rumors' head line "Adobe Retracts Claim Suggesting Lion May Lack Support for Flash Hardware Acceleration" argument's done.
Let's talk about the R2-D2 Xbox it's so pretty

Mac OS X was never big on backward compatibility. That's what makes Windows so amazing. Anyways, I have a feeling this release may be Apple's Vista.

xpclient said,
Mac OS X was never big on backward compatibility. That's what makes Windows so amazing. Anyways, I have a feeling this release may be Apple's Vista.

ME maybe, but not Vista. Contrary to popular (i.e. stupid) belief, Vista is a solid OS.

FrozenEclipse said,

ME maybe, but not Vista. Contrary to popular (i.e. stupid) belief, Vista is a solid OS.

Contrary to what many fans believe, Vista was a really bad OS and Windows 7 isn't superior to XP either but does have some unique features.

xpclient said,
Mac OS X was never big on backward compatibility. That's what makes Windows so amazing. Anyways, I have a feeling this release may be Apple's Vista.
Thats why the same viruses written for older versions of windows still affect windows 7, backwards compatibility isn't always a good thing.

And Vista was and always will be far more superior than Windows XP and Windows 7 above Vista. It's those that don't upgrade and hold onto OLD outdated tech that hold back the industry.

Xilo said,
Why is this FUD on the front page? Seriously Neowin...

How is this a FUD?! People who use graphic softwares like flash and photoshop (and even Fontlab now!) "should not" upgrade to lion!! And this point needs to reach masses.........And this is much much more important piece of information than some stupid rumours we see floating on the front page every now and then!!

Mohitster said,

How is this a FUD?! People who use graphic softwares like flash and photoshop (and even Fontlab now!) "should not" upgrade to lion!! And this point needs to reach masses.........And this is much much more important piece of information than some stupid rumours we see floating on the front page every now and then!!


This was discussed in length on the forums. It basically comes down to Adobe being too lazy to test their products in the time they had and make everything compatible for Intel.

My Flash Player worked just fine. Seems like this isn't the first Mac OS X release that has broken Adobe products. Strange how similar competing products aren't broken. I don't think Adobe is taking developing for Mac seriously. If they did, they would have been part of the DPs and have known about these issues and released patches. Instead, like before, they will probably only fully support Lion in a future release and call it a feature.

Shadrack said,
My Flash Player worked just fine. Seems like this isn't the first Mac OS X release that has broken Adobe products. Strange how similar competing products aren't broken. I don't think Adobe is taking developing for Mac seriously. If they did, they would have been part of the DPs and have known about these issues and released patches. Instead, like before, they will probably only fully support Lion in a future release and call it a feature.

I think the reason that similar competing products work just fine is that the majority of those products are written specifically for OSX using modern APIs and conventions (Pixelmator for example). Adobe has such a large codebase with old components that they run into trouble with updates like this.

It's been 6 years (6 years!) since Apple announced the transition to Intel, and apparently Adobe is still using PPC code in certain components.

I'm sorry but if a browser plugin can bring down an entire OS, then their is something wrong. Although unproven, it almost seems intentional. If I were Adobe I would do just what Apple is doing in regard to the production software, make the mainstream versions on the Mac. And maybe move the line up over time. Adobe should refocus efforts to Windows and Linux platforms. They should just get out of Apple's way. Apple is being very agressive and throwing around its weight... I feel bad for the professionals caught in the middle as Adobe is arguably one of the things that helped keep the Apple desktop stable untill the mainstream rush came along. And now Adobe is the bad guy? Can you imagine how much resources Adobe has to put into rewrites... when Apple changed to the X OS platform Adobe had to re-write all the apps... I read that Apple is intentioanlly breaking support for 3 versions back of the OS. Has anyone else heard about this?

Apple simple is not good at backwards compatibility as Microsoft. Everyone should know this by know just get yourself that latest versions. It's not Adobe or Apple who is at fault it's just how Apple chooses to do business. And there is nothing wrong with this.... Apple pushes technology along.

Melfster said,
Apple simple is not good at backwards compatibility as Microsoft. Everyone should know this by know just get yourself that latest versions. It's not Adobe or Apple who is at fault it's just how Apple chooses to do business. And there is nothing wrong with this.... Apple pushes technology along.

They can afford to do it because iPhone/iPad sales are propping up the company big time. Macs are about 20% of their current profits.

KingCrimson said,
They can afford to do it because iPhone/iPad sales are propping up the company big time. Macs are about 20% of their current profits.
Apple has never maintained Legacy support for long. Even before the iPod and such. It's just part of their model to remove legacy code after a release or two since it's been deprecated.
On the one hand it does help their system, they don't need to keep support for every version of their OS like Windows tries to do. On the other hand software you paid for, for Tiger or Leopard, may not work in Lion.

Can't say one is better, as both deal with different markets, but it's the way it goes.

KingCrimson said,

They can afford to do it because iPhone/iPad sales are propping up the company big time. Macs are about 20% of their current profits.

Apple has been Sidelining tech LONG before the iPhone and iPad. If all companies didnt we would still be using component, MIDI, ISA, and AT keyboards and mice

I don't care who is at fault as long as one of the companies makes it work again. I use Photoshop on Windows at home but I'm forced to use (and don't mind it) OSX elsewhere. If Photoshop doesn't work fully with the latest version of OS X well .. damn. That's going to be really annoying for me. Hope someone fixes it soon. I'm not at all interested learning separate mac exclusive programs tbh when I already have experience and knowledge with superior multiplatform software. ><;;

Fix it! t.t

Elliott said,
Did Neowin really run this crap story? Really?

Apparently so. Nothing in the list really seems to qualify to me as "breaking" Flash or Photoshop. There are issues for sure, but it isn't like a million Lion users can't use flash.

A lot of the remaining issues are things that Adobe should have known about long ago. Apple is pretty open with developers about future changes in APIs and support.

Elliott said,
Did Neowin really run this crap story? Really?

Some people use this stuff. It's worth letting them know.

Elliott said,
Did Neowin really run this crap story? Really?

Some people use this stuff. It's worth letting them know.

Owen W said,

Some people use this stuff. It's worth letting them know.

Applications with known issues is still different than being completely broken.

Apple didn't disable or block Flash Player's hardware decoding. It's right in there in the support article that you linked to.

"UPDATE: The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous “Known Issue” suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration. We continue to work closely with Apple to provide Flash Player users with a high quality experience on Mac computers."

Their Safari Adobe Reader plug-in no longer works because Apple deprecated the old WebKit plug-in API because it couldn't run as a separate process in their new model, WebKit2.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/908/cpsid_90885.html

"Acrobat Reader plug-in and Acrobat plug-in are dependent on the WebKit WebPlugin API and capabilities that were unique to Safari."

This is explained here: http://developer.apple.com/lib...ic/Tasks/WebKitPlugins.html

"Because WebKit plug-ins are so closely tied to browser data structures, these plug-ins cannot run in a separate process. Thus, to improve security and stability, Safari in Mac OS X v10.7 no longer supports this model."

Photoshop droplets no longer work because they run PPC code. PPC has also been deprecated in Lion. http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/907/cpsid_90706.html

To say that Apple is knowingly working against Adobe to hinder their software is nothing short of gossip.

giga said,
Apple didn't disable or block Flash Player's hardware decoding. It's right in there in the support article that you linked to.

"UPDATE: The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous “Known Issue” suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration. We continue to work closely with Apple to provide Flash Player users with a high quality experience on Mac computers."

Their Safari Adobe Reader plug-in no longer works because Apple deprecated the old WebKit plug-in API because it couldn't run as a separate process in their new model, WebKit2.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/908/cpsid_90885.html

"Acrobat Reader plug-in and Acrobat plug-in are dependent on the WebKit WebPlugin API and capabilities that were unique to Safari."

This is explained here: http://developer.apple.com/lib...ic/Tasks/WebKitPlugins.html

"Because WebKit plug-ins are so closely tied to browser data structures, these plug-ins cannot run in a separate process. Thus, to improve security and stability, Safari in Mac OS X v10.7 no longer supports this model."

Photoshop droplets no longer work because they run PPC code. PPC has also been deprecated in Lion. http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/907/cpsid_90706.html

To say that Apple is knowingly working against Adobe to hinder their software is nothing short of gossip.

Again, all things that could have been tested and fixed before release. Adobe is being lazy. Really? Droplets using PPC code? Come on... that is just lame.

FriedCherry said,

Again, all things that could have been tested and fixed before release. Adobe is being lazy. Really? Droplets using PPC code? Come on... that is just lame.


Re-writing CS5 just to support Lion is silly, don't you agree?

stablemist said,

Re-writing CS5 just to support Lion is silly, don't you agree?

Rewriting CS5? This is only about droplets. Read the support article.

"Photoshop CS5:

Solution 1: Drag your old droplets onto the Photoshop application icon. An updated version of the droplet is created in the same folder as the old one, with (CS5).app at the end of the name.

Solution 2: The 12.0.1 update allows you to create droplets using native code for Intel processors. Update Photoshop CS5 with the latest updates and then recreate your droplets. "

giga said,
Apple didn't disable or block Flash Player's hardware decoding. It's right in there in the support article that you linked to.

"UPDATE: The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous “Known Issue” suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration. We continue to work closely with Apple to provide Flash Player users with a high quality experience on Mac computers."

Their Safari Adobe Reader plug-in no longer works because Apple deprecated the old WebKit plug-in API because it couldn't run as a separate process in their new model, WebKit2.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/908/cpsid_90885.html

"Acrobat Reader plug-in and Acrobat plug-in are dependent on the WebKit WebPlugin API and capabilities that were unique to Safari."

This is explained here: http://developer.apple.com/lib...ic/Tasks/WebKitPlugins.html

"Because WebKit plug-ins are so closely tied to browser data structures, these plug-ins cannot run in a separate process. Thus, to improve security and stability, Safari in Mac OS X v10.7 no longer supports this model."

Photoshop droplets no longer work because they run PPC code. PPC has also been deprecated in Lion. http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/907/cpsid_90706.html

To say that Apple is knowingly working against Adobe to hinder their software is nothing short of gossip.


"Early reports incorrectly suggested that Apple had disabled GPU support for Flash Player in all browsers"

Owen W said,

"Early reports incorrectly suggested that Apple had disabled GPU support for Flash Player in all browsers"

Which you then followed with: "However, the Adobe support page reports that there is an issue where "Flash Player may cause higher CPU activity when playing a YouTube video" but this is a separate issue".

It was not a separate issue. It's right there in the support article: "Flash Player may cause higher CPU activity when playing a YouTube video. Possibly related to disabled hardware acceleration."

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/905/cpsid_90508.html

Well, if you can't make your OS to fit the needs of the software that runs on it, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. I'll bet Apple purposely coded Lion to not work with Adobe products (ooh, shocker! ). Fine by me, then. People will just move over to an OS that actually works.

How does a internet pluging, Flash, manage to crash an entire OS. Is that apples fault or Adobe? All arguments aside I block flash for its invasiveness with adverts but with cloud computing being so prevalent, why isn't there a bigger push for HTML5 streaming. Man I wish justin.tv supported HTML5 (and all the video stuff encompassed with it)

shifts said,
How does a internet pluging, Flash, manage to crash an entire OS?

This is the winning question. WTF is Apple doing that makes Flash crash their entire OS??? How come when a new version of Windows is released, there are no examples of this incompatibility with Adobe products? Once again, it's just Apple trying to weed out the superior competition on their platforms.

PlogCF said,

This is the winning question. WTF is Apple doing that makes Flash crash their entire OS??? How come when a new version of Windows is released, there are no examples of this incompatibility with Adobe products? Once again, it's just Apple trying to weed out the superior competition on their platforms.

I have yet to see any credible reports that Flash Player is crashing the entire OS. It runs as a separate process in the system.

giga said,

I have yet to see any credible reports that Flash Player is crashing the entire OS. It runs as a separate process in the system.

Been on Lion for about 24 hours now, using flash on and off. No crashes here. I have actually had Flash crash several times in Chrome on my Windows 7 machine in the same time.

shifts said,
How does a internet pluging, Flash, manage to crash an entire OS. Is that apples fault or Adobe? All arguments aside I block flash for its invasiveness with adverts but with cloud computing being so prevalent, why isn't there a bigger push for HTML5 streaming. Man I wish justin.tv supported HTML5 (and all the video stuff encompassed with it)

Wow you realize how ridiculous your statement is? You block Flash because it shows ads.... What do you think HTML 5 will do???? Companies will decide to stop advertising and websites will decide to stop profiting simply because everyone is holding hands and bowing down to HTML 5?

giga said,

I have yet to see any credible reports that Flash Player is crashing the entire OS. It runs as a separate process in the system.

Go ask Simon

Owen W said,

Go ask Simon

I have hardlocked twice in the last 3 hours but only seems to do it when safari is full screen. hasnt crashed yet since i took safari out of full screen (which is negating one of the benefits of upgrading to lion *sigh*)

andrewbares said,

Wow you realize how ridiculous your statement is? You block Flash because it shows ads.... What do you think HTML 5 will do???? Companies will decide to stop advertising and websites will decide to stop profiting simply because everyone is holding hands and bowing down to HTML 5?

And you do realize how preposterous your reply is and I note you miss out the main point of my is how can a plugin crash an entire OS. Didn't Vista break a hell of a lot of software as well? Of course HTML will be used for ads however the point is that if they do so but not at the expense of high cpu usage then that's acceptable.

How is anyone bowing down to html 5 when it will be a standard? Was the same argument there when flash became a standard or was it just accepted?

So much negativity in posts these days :-(

shifts said,

And you do realize how preposterous your reply is and I note you miss out the main point of my is how can a plugin crash an entire OS. Didn't Vista break a hell of a lot of software as well? Of course HTML will be used for ads however the point is that if they do so but not at the expense of high cpu usage then that's acceptable.

How is anyone bowing down to html 5 when it will be a standard? Was the same argument there when flash became a standard or was it just accepted?

So much negativity in posts these days :-(

I think you're getting confused over what a standard actually is...HTML has to have a standard because it has to be interpreted by third parties (e.g. different browsers). Flash doesn't, Adobe develop the plugins so therefore as long as you have the plugin it'll work...
Just because its widely used, doesn't make it a standard.

shifts said,
Didn't Vista break a hell of a lot of software as well?
Not that much, tbh. Switching from 32 to 64 bit probably has a bigger effect (in that you can't run 16 bit progs any more).

shifts said,
why isn't there a bigger push for HTML5 streaming. Man I wish justin.tv supported HTML5 (and all the video stuff encompassed with it)

Because HTML5 lacks important features like DRM and integrated Ads. Yeah, you could live without them but for the content providers they're requirements. Furthermore there's the big Codec-debate. Not every major browser supports every codec and there isn't a standard. So right now Flash is much more compatible and universally usable than videos with HTML5.

To be Honestly with out adobe flash mac,iphone,ipad,ipod are useless cuz you can't view flash animation and flash site or play game that it require adobe flash. or don't even thinking about compare adobe-flash with iSwifter .... iSwifter does't work as flash do. .... in the other hand with out adobe flash apple is dead.

Gaara sama said,
To be Honestly with out adobe flash mac,iphone,ipad,ipod are useless cuz you can't view flash animation and flash site or play game that it require adobe flash. or don't even thinking about compare adobe-flash with iSwifter .... iSwifter does't work as flash do. .... in the other hand with out adobe flash apple is dead.

Where have you been the last 3 or 4 years?

Gaara sama said,
To be Honestly with out adobe flash mac,iphone,ipad,ipod are useless cuz you can't view flash animation and flash site or play game that it require adobe flash. or don't even thinking about compare adobe-flash with iSwifter .... iSwifter does't work as flash do. .... in the other hand with out adobe flash apple is dead.

The Mac's are useless without flash, but the mobile devices are okay without it since you always have a computer that can view flash.

geoken said,

Where have you been the last 3 or 4 years?

Obviously he hasn't been to school .

If a website REQUIRES flash to be properly viewed, its not worth viewing.

DJ Dark said,
If a website REQUIRES flash to be properly viewed, its not worth viewing.
So I guess all those many years of Flash games mean nothing. Those video players on those video playing sites, mean nothing. Sure, there's replacements, but they're not 1 to 1 replacements.

FrozenEclipse said,

Watching Naruto, judging by his username.

you may be right watching Naruto with need flash to watch it as well lol

DJ Dark said,
Obviously he hasn't been to school .

If a website REQUIRES flash to be properly viewed, its not worth viewing.

you 2 may be right but , not everybody know that do you agree with me?

so if u know that so why you batter to make a comment on this post?

Gaara sama said,
To be Honestly with out adobe flash mac,iphone,ipad,ipod are useless cuz you can't view flash animation and flash site or play game that it require adobe flash. or don't even thinking about compare adobe-flash with iSwifter .... iSwifter does't work as flash do. .... in the other hand with out adobe flash apple is dead.

Yes they are uesless without flash,,,, how many have they sold again?

DJ Dark said,
Obviously he hasn't been to school .

If a website REQUIRES flash to be properly viewed, its not worth viewing.


Facebook REQUIRES the Skype plugin for video chat, Google REQUIRES their own plugin to use Voice and Video chat. Are they both not worth using?
What about the own Apple site that REQUIRES Quicktime to be installed in order to watch videos?

I always chuckle when I see this silly Flash argument repeated over and over.

gonchuki said,

Facebook REQUIRES the Skype plugin for video chat, Google REQUIRES their own plugin to use Voice and Video chat. Are they both not worth using?
What about the own Apple site that REQUIRES Quicktime to be installed in order to watch videos?

I always chuckle when I see this silly Flash argument repeated over and over.

Actually no, facebook only requires the plugin if you wish to use said feature, same with google.

Also again Apple's website does not require quicktime (I actually did confirm this fact with chromes task manager, the only plugin running was *gasp* flash and that was for one of my other tabs)

Seriously, if you follow the topic that has already gone on for pages and ignored certain members quite obvious hatred, it is quite obvious and like we have seen in the past, that Adobe are just slow at updating most of their products.

They have had the last few months with the developer previews to sort some of this out but have seemingly done nothing to prepare a number of their existing releases for a major OS update.

People like to jump on the "Apple hates Flash" wagon, but besides that there is no reason for Apple to purposely screw over Adobe, most design colleges/universities that I have been in and the ones I went to are based on OS X and using Adobe software, Apple aren't going to try and destroy what they have a big part in just to get rid of Flash.
The Last.fm plug in for iTunes after the latest stopped working also because of updated and changes APIs, with the reasoning of some people I should assume that Apple hates Last.fm too.

Corris said,
Seriously, if you follow the topic that has already gone on for pages and ignored certain members quite obvious hatred, it is quite obvious and like we have seen in the past, that Adobe are just slow at updating most of their products.

They have had the last few months with the developer previews to sort some of this out but have seemingly done nothing to prepare a number of their existing releases for a major OS update.

People like to jump on the "Apple hates Flash" wagon, but besides that there is no reason for Apple to purposely screw over Adobe, most design colleges/universities that I have been in and the ones I went to are based on OS X and using Adobe software, Apple aren't going to try and destroy what they have a big part in just to get rid of Flash.
The Last.fm plug in for iTunes after the latest stopped working also because of updated and changes APIs, with the reasoning of some people I should assume that Apple hates Last.fm too.


So its Adobe's fault that they had all their stuff broken by an Apple update, where Apple used to work closely with them to ensure it worked and now they don't?

Owen W said,

So its Adobe's fault that they had all their stuff broken by an Apple update, where Apple used to work closely with them to ensure it worked and now they don't?

Like I said, Adobe have had months to sort it out before Lion came out.

I don't blame either of them, Apple are trying to move forward and leave legacy components behind that have no place on an OS that doesn't run on said hardware, it just happens that Adobe haven't done anything to prevent it let along try to update much of their existing line before hand, and as someone who has uses Adobe products and said software before they acquired Macromedia and across multiple OS's I've had plenty of experience with the company being terrible at times.

Like a lot of things that have gone awry with Lions or really any new OS release and the programs it uses, in a matter of time they will be updated or people will find work arounds.

Knowing Adobe they were probably using legacy API's that have been cut. Adobe hasn't been quick to move forward on MacOS development for many years now..

Ryoken said,
Knowing Adobe they were probably using legacy API's that have been cut. Adobe hasn't been quick to move forward on MacOS development for many years now..

Well said. That is EXACTLY what it is. All this other conspiracy crap is just that... Crap! It has nothing to do with flash or iOS. Remember how long CS was on Carbon until they HAD to make the switch? What about full 64bit? It came to windows first. Abobe is SLOW about moving forward.

FriedCherry said,
Well said. That is EXACTLY what it is. All this other conspiracy crap is just that... Crap! It has nothing to do with flash or iOS. Remember how long CS was on Carbon until they HAD to make the switch? What about full 64bit? It came to windows first. Abobe is SLOW about moving forward.
And, for better or worse, unlike Microsoft, Apple does not continue legacy support for long. When Apple releases a new API, or just ends and old one, you get a version, maybe two before Apple removes all support.
Apple does not want to be caught like MS has, supporting old elements long since retired for decades. It's a waste of their time and resources for the market they are in. ( No one buys a Mac looking to run decade or two old software on it.. The same cannot be said for Windows, business especially. )

FriedCherry said,
Remember how long CS was on Carbon until they HAD to make the switch? What about full 64bit? It came to windows first. Abobe is SLOW about moving forward.

That was because Apple first said they will deliver Carbon APIs in 64bit, and than on short note canceled that. Adobe chose to not delay the 64bit Windows version while working on the port to Cocoa, and that is why Photoshop came out in 64bit on Windows fist.

I can see why Apple ditched support for Carbon, as it is a pain in the ass to maintain two APIs, but the DID this on short notice, also something like 6 months before release.
Carbon was NEVER said to be a legacy API at that time, Apple just told people one day: "We won't move that API to 64bit"

Ryoken said,
And, for better or worse, unlike Microsoft, Apple does not continue legacy support for long. When Apple releases a new API, or just ends and old one, you get a version, maybe two before Apple removes all support.
Apple does not want to be caught like MS has, supporting old elements long since retired for decades. It's a waste of their time and resources for the market they are in. ( No one buys a Mac looking to run decade or two old software on it.. The same cannot be said for Windows, business especially. )

And that's why macs are not used in the enterprise market...

dodgetigger said,
That was because Apple first said they will deliver Carbon APIs in 64bit, and than on short note canceled that. Adobe chose to not delay the 64bit Windows version while working on the port to Cocoa, and that is why Photoshop came out in 64bit on Windows fist.

I can see why Apple ditched support for Carbon, as it is a pain in the ass to maintain two APIs, but the DID this on short notice, also something like 6 months before release.
Carbon was NEVER said to be a legacy API at that time, Apple just told people one day: "We won't move that API to 64bit"

The only thing of Carbon they didn't provide in 64bit was the UI, the underlying 'guts' is still very much available for 64bit applications to take advantage of. If you wrote your application cleanly from day one with code separation between the back and front end them moving to a new Cocoa based front end whilst having a 64bit Carbon backend would be a relatively simple thing to achieve.

The solution is simple, if you like your flash player and Photoshop then buy a windows pc or stick with your horrendously overpriced Mac but don't upgrade to lion.

James Riske said,
The solution is simple, if you like your flash player and Photoshop then buy a windows pc or stick with your horrendously overpriced Mac but don't upgrade to lion.

Yeah, sticking to Windows because of Flash and forgetting every other different thing between Windows and OS X. That surely makes sense!

PyX said,

Yeah, sticking to Windows because of Flash and forgetting every other different thing between Windows and OS X. That surely makes sense!

Difference enought to warrant double of the price? I mean they are both OS's , they both work..

PyX said,

Yeah, sticking to Windows because of Flash and forgetting every other different thing between Windows and OS X. That surely makes sense!

It makes a lot of sense actually, if adobe works good with snow leopard then stick with that until things are fixed on lion or buy a windows PC if you must have functional adobe products plus I bet if you sold a Mac on craigslist or eBay you would end up with enough extra cash to buy two windows machines, each one being much faster than the Mac you sold, each one able to use adobe products, win-win situation, just a thought.

ryoohki said,

Difference enought to warrant double of the price? I mean they are both OS's , they both work..


Not this debate over and over again. Of course, they're different enough, and this is why you're probably using Windows. End of the line.

By the way, if you want to keep debating on the price and functionalities, go the according forum thread for that.

Adobe had more than what, 4 months to roll out a fix for Lion's compatibility? Yet there's no update on their side...

PyX said,
Adobe had more than what, 4 months to roll out a fix for Lion's compatibility? Yet there's no update on their side...

Which was one of the biggest reasons Vista had a lukewarm at best reception at its launch, just not Adobe, but nVidia and the like.

well if you think of the incentives here who has to gain by making this product not work on a Mac.. well Apple gains because that means that people may switch to their poorly reviews Final Cut Pro, Adobe does not gain at all because that means they are losing business on Mac sales because they have no other OS of sale..

Apple I believe is making the same mistake that microsoft made years ago by forcing out competition and they will pay for it in the long run when companies dont trust them.. Microsoft has just been gaining this back lately where Apple seems to want to have a complete monopoly of its own system and only let other companies in where there is a crack in its own services..

Lachlan said,
Adobe does not gain at all because that means they are losing business on Mac sales because they have no other OS of sale..

But Adobe won't be affected much since PC's make up the huge majority of computers, and Adobe makes their software for Windows.

Oh no. Compatibility issues with an OS that was officially released 24 hours ago!

Adobe is likely to release a fix soon. Regardless, I have been using PhotoShop CS5 on OS X Lion and it seems to be working fine (at least for me?).

kizzaaa said,
Oh no. Compatibility issues with an OS that was officially released 24 hours ago!

Adobe is likely to release a fix soon. Regardless, I have been using PhotoShop CS5 on OS X Lion and it seems to be working fine (at least for me?).


There's never been any before like this.

Owen W said,

There's never been any before like this.

Where are Adobe's updates after 6 months of Mac OS X Lion DPs?

Owen W said,

There's never been any before like this.
Umm.. There was a lot of stuff like this when Vista first came out. Only it was worse because the hardware failed to work due to driver issues.

Owen W said,

There's never been any before like this.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/905/cpsid_90508.html

"UPDATE: The final release of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) provides the same support for Flash hardware video acceleration as Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6). The previous “Known Issue” suggesting that video hardware acceleration was disabled in Lion was incorrect and based on tests with a pre-release version of Mac OS X Lion that related to only one particular Mac GPU configuration. We continue to work closely with Apple to provide Flash Player users with a high quality experience on Mac computers."

Ryoken said,
Umm.. There was a lot of stuff like this when Vista first came out. Only it was worse because the hardware failed to work due to driver issues.

On Mac*

Owen W said,

There's never been any before like this.

The last major version of photoshop I paid for at work was CS3, it was released a few months before Mac OS X 10.5 was released. There were "issues" - the one that springs to mind was not being able to type numbers into text boxes - which really made things like Indesign almost useless.

3 weeks later there was a fix.

Later Mac OS X 10.6 shipped and Adobe was up to CS5 with their software - it was the last major version I paid for with my own money (as opposed to company money). Lightroom simply wouldn't install, trying to use certain fonts (including opening documents using that font) crashed Photoshop.

2 weeks later it was updated and everything was fine.

This is just a typical "new operating system has compatibility issues with old software". What exactly would Apple gain by deliberately screwing with their own customers? What does Adobe gain by dragging their feet on supporting their users?

There's no conspiracy here: it's no different from iTunes not immediately working on Windows Vista - that wasn't Microsoft "taking a shot" at Apple, it was a 3rd party vendor taking longer than anticipated to update their software for a new operating system.

Owen W said,
There's never been any before like this.

You don't remember the corruption sh-tstorm that happened with CS3 when Leopard was released? Good lord, short memories people have here - its an on going saga with each release because Adobe has a crappy code base that works horribly on Windows and Mac with the only saving grace being that Microsoft bends over backwards to accommodate Adobe's crappiness where as Apple says, "f-ck it, we'll do it live!".

Mr Nom Nom's said,

You don't remember the corruption sh-tstorm that happened with CS3 when Leopard was released? Good lord, short memories people have here - its an on going saga with each release because Adobe has a crappy code base that works horribly on Windows and Mac with the only saving grace being that Microsoft bends over backwards to accommodate Adobe's crappiness where as Apple says, "f-ck it, we'll do it live!".


The problem here is that Apple just removes support for stuff at will (removing APIs, changing them, or completely replacing the feature with another thing), whereas Microsoft strives to keep their OS compatible with the majority of software.

On Windows, I can use/install 90%+ of the software that was released 10 years ago for Windows XP, on a Mac all the software that I run needs to be updated every single time that Apple releases an updated operating system.

gonchuki said,
The problem here is that Apple just removes support for stuff at will (removing APIs, changing them, or completely replacing the feature with another thing), whereas Microsoft strives to keep their OS compatible with the majority of software.

The issues are related to the latest versions as well - I could understand maybe older versions of Creative Suite not working but the problem also impacts on CS5 as well. All this could be avoided had Adobe used the Intel transition to give their code base an over haul - if Microsoft can give the Microsoft Windows code base a complete top to bottom overhaul by refactoring millions of lines of code whilst improving compatibility then I think Adobe can do the same given that they (Adobe) have a smaller code base than Microsoft.

On Windows, I can use/install 90%+ of the software that was released 10 years ago for Windows XP, on a Mac all the software that I run needs to be updated every single time that Apple releases an updated operating system.

What a load of crap - install an old version of Office onto Windows 7 and see problems arise. How the hell is it the fault of Apple because certain companies see it as the opportunity to milk customers over a new release just as these very same companies tried to milk Windows Vista customers when it was released; Apple and Microsoft is stuck between the hardware and software vendors who are hell bent on pushing new products over providing software, firmware and driver updates.

I'm wondering if Apple purposely caused Adobe applications to not work properly because of competition (e.g. Premier with Final Cut Pro, Flash with Apple's HTML 5 obsession, Reader with OS X Native PDF support etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case since that is somewhat Apple's M.O. considering they never allowed iOS to support Flash, refused to anti-alias the Windows text on Boot Camp, used the BSoD screen on icons that represent Windows machines, etc.

mindscape said,
I'm wondering if Apple purposely caused Adobe applications to not work properly because of competition (e.g. Premier with Final Cut Pro, Flash with Apple's HTML 5 obsession, Reader with OS X Native PDF support etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case since that is somewhat Apple's M.O. considering they never allowed iOS to support Flash, refused to anti-alias the Windows text on Boot Camp, used the BSoD screen on icons that represent Windows machines, etc.

Can't be with Photoshop. Apple doesn't have an equivalent.

sweatshopking said,
i don't know why adobe bothers. Many people buy macs because they WANT adobe. I'd tell apple to suck it.

I'm sure Apple will do just fine without Adobe products running on OS/X. $7.3 billion net income last quarter says it all...

Despite what a handful of freelancers would like the world to believe, the vast majority of professional artists and creatives run Adobe products on PCs...mostly because they like to play games, save money, have a choice, etc.

The only professional reason left to run Mac was Final Cut Pro, which was really taking hold in a major way recently...that is until Apple just killed it with version X-asperating...

sweatshopking said,
i don't know why adobe bothers. Many people buy macs because they WANT adobe. I'd tell apple to suck it.

yeah i remember that time when graphic/digital artists mass migrated in favor of macs BECAUSE of photoshop being more "smooth" to work on on a mac. i guess we'll see another great migration if apple remains stubborn on their stand on adobe.

btw, photoshop works flawlessly on windows 7. *wink wink*

3rd impact said,

yeah i remember that time when graphic/digital artists mass migrated in favor of macs BECAUSE of photoshop being more "smooth" to work on on a mac. i guess we'll see another great migration if apple remains stubborn on their stand on adobe.

btw, photoshop works flawlessly on windows 7. *wink wink*

yep that's always has been their argument, but now "apple doesnt need adobe and they'll do just fine" just like the tool above implied...

KingCrimson said,

I'm sure Apple will do just fine without Adobe products running on OS/X. $7.3 billion net income last quarter says it all...

Yeah, they're making a killing by selling toys these days. Leave the real work to PCs.

excalpius said,
Despite what a handful of freelancers would like the world to believe, the vast majority of professional artists and creatives run Adobe products on PCs...mostly because they like to play games, save money, have a choice, etc.

The only professional reason left to run Mac was Final Cut Pro, which was really taking hold in a major way recently...that is until Apple just killed it with version X-asperating...

Graphic designers started leaving Mac and Apple as far back as the early 1990s, when Windows started using accelerated GPU technologies like the 8514, ATI Vantage, Ultra, and some customs solutions.

Doing graphic design back then on a 1024x768 display with 'smoothed fonts' that could draw items on the screen 10 to 100 times faster than a Mac was a big shove.

People that were technical to pay atttention to performance, stuck with Windows through the 90s, as they got pre-emptive multi-tasking and didn't have Font instalation or Memory allocation issues like System 7, 8, and 9 did.

There was a vast amount of work that Mac Graphic Designers during this time went through that was just not needed and unheard of in the Windows world.

Even today, a 'Font Manager' on Windows is still a shake your head concept, even though some old graphic designers still use them. With Windows installating several thousand fonts doesn't change anything, and there is no reason not to have all your fonts installed and available. (It can add a second or two startup delay to a really bad application that enumerates the installed fonts using a manual method).

The overall video display performance in Windows, with regard to screen drawing that photoshop and illustrator and other graphic design type applications use is significantly faster than OS X. This was true in the late 90s with the video card acceleration technologies available for Windows and is true again today with Windows 7 that uses a very fast new vector based composer that doesn't have to do the System to VRAM double writes that OS X does.

Adobe POed Apple and lot of Mac users when they were honest and said that Windows and its hardware technology were faster than OS X and Mac hardware technology. Which was true, and was Apple's craziness of using horribly slow GPU technology in high end Macs. (Which they still do today. A Mac with integrated Intel GPU technology is not going to touch a Windows PC with a fast ATI or NVidia GPU. Yet Apple ships this as their 'good stuff' not the $299 special at Walmart. (Even when they do dedicated GPU, they use the middle of the road solutions from NVidia or ATI, and this is far below what a serious graphics designer would be buying.)

Apple also screwed over Adobe once with the drop of 64bit evolution of the frameworks, which they promised in writing to Adobe that it would evolve to support 64bits. This gave Adobe a boost on Windows again, as they were able to release 64bit versions of Photoshop, and due to the development cycle only could produce 32bit versions for Mac users.

Another thing. while a lot of Apple users use Adobe, there's a LOT more adobe users using windows.

out of 1000 computer users, 900 and then some use windows, 50 use Mac.

if 20% of mac users use adobe, that's 10 users, though We're probably talking 10% nowadays, making it 5 users. which is a high percentage of mac users.

now if 10% of windows users use Adobe. that's 90 users. and even if only 5%, it's still 45 users. 5 times more than the Apple users. despite half the percentage of users.

The whole using a Mac because you're a designer thing stems from way back on the PowerPC. since the PowerPC cpu was specifically designed as a low amount of instruction cpu, with most of them targeted at color table conversions. meaning it was EXTREMELY efficient at doing certain things in photoshop. But on the other hand, it was slower for a lot of other regular office stuff than a regular complex intel CPU. Then the x86 architecture caught up so much in raw clock speed and efficiency, that the powerPC architecture's advantages didn't matter anymore and the x86 chips outperformed them. and designed started migrating to cheaper and more efficient PC solutions.

thenetavenger said,

edited for brevity

+1. That was a truly excellent summation of the Adobe/Apple relationship from the graphics artist perspective. Public kudos to you.

If you read this article in MacRumors, its full of hatred and hundreds of people howling about how this is all Adobe's fault, and that this is further proof of their decline.

Benjy91 said,
If you read this article in MacRumors, its full of hatred and hundreds of people howling about how this is all Adobe's fault, and that this is further proof of their decline.

It's got nothing to do with Adobe

Owen W said,

It's got nothing to do with Adobe

Then why do alternatives like Pixelmator work flawlessly? AFAIK developers had Develop Preview 1 far ago and they worked on the compatibility of their apps. What has Adobe done so far to make their products work with Lion?

Owen W said,

It's got nothing to do with Adobe

It is kind of their fault because Mac OS X Lion was in works for a long time now and knew there will be changes and they did not bother to take care of the bugs before Lion was released and lot of other developers did with their apps when Lion was in Beta.

TsMkLg068426 said,

It is kind of their fault because Mac OS X Lion was in works for a long time now and knew there will be changes and they did not bother to take care of the bugs before Lion was released and lot of other developers did with their apps when Lion was in Beta.

By that thinking, it was not Microsoft's fault that there was claimed Vista incompatibilities with drivers and software. It was the fault of the device and software manufacturers. After all, Vista was freely available in beta starting in Sept 2005 and finally shipped in Oct 2009. Lion was released as a developer preview in February 2011 and released July 2011. Developers had 8 times the length of time to fix problems with their software than OSX developers did.

nohone said,

By that thinking, it was not Microsoft's fault that there was claimed Vista incompatibilities with drivers and software. It was the fault of the device and software manufacturers. After all, Vista was freely available in beta starting in Sept 2005 and finally shipped in Oct 2009. Lion was released as a developer preview in February 2011 and released July 2011. Developers had 8 times the length of time to fix problems with their software than OSX developers did.

Vista shipped in Oct 2007. 7 shipped in Oct 2009.

nohone said,

Lion was released as a developer preview in February 2011 and released July 2011. Developers had 8 times the length of time to fix problems with their software than OSX developers did.

Precisely. And during this time Apple was changing things. It's hard for any developer to hit a moving target, let alone a HUGE one like Adobe...with only a few months lead time.

excalpius said,

Precisely. And during this time Apple was changing things. It's hard for any developer to hit a moving target, let alone a HUGE one like Adobe...with only a few months lead time.

I blame Apple, as Adobe makes good products, Apple on the other hand.... Well you can see my opinion

PyX said,

Then why do alternatives like Pixelmator work flawlessly? AFAIK developers had Develop Preview 1 far ago and they worked on the compatibility of their apps. What has Adobe done so far to make their products work with Lion?

Because Adobe products require the Oracle Java Runtime be installed to function properly, and for the first time Java is no longer part of OS-X and does not come pre-installed. This is the primary cause of the Adobe products breaking. It is not Adobe's fault that for the last 10 years Apple was the sole maintainer of Java for OS-X.

K

Kaedrin said,

Because Adobe products require the Oracle Java Runtime be installed to function properly, and for the first time Java is no longer part of OS-X and does not come pre-installed. This is the primary cause of the Adobe products breaking. It is not Adobe's fault that for the last 10 years Apple was the sole maintainer of Java for OS-X.

K

But wouldn't that mean that the OSX Lion users only need to download and install a JRT and the problem would be solved? Sounds like it's more complicated than that.

nohone said,

By that thinking, it was not Microsoft's fault that there was claimed Vista incompatibilities with drivers and software. It was the fault of the device and software manufacturers. After all, Vista was freely available in beta starting in Sept 2005 and finally shipped in Oct 2009. Lion was released as a developer preview in February 2011 and released July 2011. Developers had 8 times the length of time to fix problems with their software than OSX developers did.

In the case of Microsoft and drivers it was the developers fault because the driver model and underlying code was finalized well before final release was done.

For software the developers are still at fault because the ground rules for proper software behavior was already laid down when XP came out. Being that the developers chose to flat out ignore those rules only came out to bite them later on when Vista decided to enforce those rules.

Can't say the same for Apple/Adobe here though because I don't know what's the situation in it's own.

KingCrimson said,

Vista shipped in Oct 2007. 7 shipped in Oct 2009.

you are wrong it RTM'ed in nov 2006 , shipped in January 2007

Kaedrin said,

Because Adobe products require the Oracle Java Runtime be installed to function properly, and for the first time Java is no longer part of OS-X and does not come pre-installed. This is the primary cause of the Adobe products breaking. It is not Adobe's fault that for the last 10 years Apple was the sole maintainer of Java for OS-X.

It is Adobe's fault entirely. Did you know that the Adobe installer is only a wrapper for the built-in OSX installer? They could've easily used the built-in installer without losing anything but instead they did what they always do, a poorly made non-native method because it seems Adobe simply doesn't understand what UI design guidelines are. This is also evident in the folder mess they make in /Applications. Applications are supposed to be .app packages, not folder structures with a .app hidden somewhere in there. ~/Library is the place where you're supposed to install plugins and whatnot.

Adobe's Creative Suite is as non-native as they come on any platform. They have faked various OSX default features like toolbar behavior but they haven't done it correctly so some things don't work as they should. Adobe is notorious for shoddy UI work. Their software package, all of it, is essentially a good base that turned sour by incompetent UI designers and most likely poor management choices. The only ones who seem to know what they're doing are the folks writing the algorithms for things like content aware scaling etc.

nohone said,

By that thinking, it was not Microsoft's fault that there was claimed Vista incompatibilities with drivers and software. It was the fault of the device and software manufacturers. After all, Vista was freely available in beta starting in Sept 2005 and finally shipped in Oct 2009. Lion was released as a developer preview in February 2011 and released July 2011. Developers had 8 times the length of time to fix problems with their software than OSX developers did.

Which is exactly the case: a significant part of the hatred vista got was really the OEM's fault.

Owen W said,

It's got nothing to do with Adobe

How is that? Their programs are having trouble, how isnt that their fault?
They have had several months to test and fix their programs for Lion.

Isn't it funny how programs from small teams of indie developers (Alfred for example) with one or two developers on the project can be ready for Lion but a big company like Adobe can't?

Kaedrin said,

Because Adobe products require the Oracle Java Runtime be installed to function properly, and for the first time Java is no longer part of OS-X and does not come pre-installed. This is the primary cause of the Adobe products breaking. It is not Adobe's fault that for the last 10 years Apple was the sole maintainer of Java for OS-X.

K

Uh? You could be right on track, but I honestly did not know this.

On Windows, Java has not been included (or used much at all) since 2001, and many companies forbid the installation of the Sun Java runtime. Yet Adobe products work fine without any JVM or JRT installed on Windows.

(Makes me wonder if they are including some rolled up Java runtime in the Adobe product installation that only theire products use on Windows, knowing most installations don't have Java. - Wow, I need to check this out.)

Can anyone confirm the Adobe and Java tie-in, on OS X?

thenetavenger said,
Uh? You could be right on track, but I honestly did not know this.

On Windows, Java has not been included (or used much at all) since 2001, and many companies forbid the installation of the Sun Java runtime. Yet Adobe products work fine without any JVM or JRT installed on Windows.

(Makes me wonder if they are including some rolled up Java runtime in the Adobe product installation that only theire products use on Windows, knowing most installations don't have Java. - Wow, I need to check this out.)

Can anyone confirm the Adobe and Java tie-in, on OS X?

The original person is correct in that Java is required - on first launch of one of the Creative Suite applications (it wasn't a Java based one) Mac OS X requested that I needed to install the Java runtime environment, I clicked on 'install' and voila a few seconds later after downloading and installation everything worked peachy. Java is not installed by default but on demand when a call to Java is made (the 'java' sitting on the system is merely a script that invokes the download and installation of Java from the Apple servers).

Ask yourself, how many end users use Java? If I was betting man I'd say that there are more people who use Flash/Air on a day to day basis than using Java

nohone said,
By that thinking, it was not Microsoft's fault that there was claimed Vista incompatibilities with drivers and software. It was the fault of the device and software manufacturers. After all, Vista was freely available in beta starting in Sept 2005 and finally shipped in Oct 2009. Lion was released as a developer preview in February 2011 and released July 2011. Developers had 8 times the length of time to fix problems with their software than OSX developers did.

The only fault Microsoft should carry was the fact that they failed to implement hardware accelerated GDI which resulted in the 'slowness' that many people talked about - GDI is still used to draw all the common controls and dialogues that almost every application on Windows uses, so in other words it was a huge misstep by leaving it in software mode. Putting that aside I am with you, OEM's had ages to prepare - the changes that Microsoft announced they had been talking about for years. These changes, even if there were no exactness in terms of a SDK the scale of the changes were known so that at the very least hardware vendors could update their driver code to make it more flexible so that changes can be made easier and quicker. Sorry to say this but many hardware and software vendors saw the launch of Windows Vista as a reason to end support for their existing software and hardware in favour of pushing expensive upgrades onto end users.

The one thing I do admire about Microsoft is the support for their software - Microsoft support their releases for up to five years so when people whine about Apple why don't people equally whine about Adobe and their refusal to provide updates to CS5 customers in favour of forcing an expensive upgrade onto customers if they want their software to run correctly? Adobe could provide a software update for CS5 but refuse to because they've just released CS5.5 and would sooner push upgrades than supporting existing customer. Sorry, this isn't a Apple versus Adobe argument but an example of a greedy monopolistic company who time and time again have screwed over customers but instead of blaming Adobe they blame Apple. If Microsoft can provide timely updates to the software they provide for Mac OS X then why can't Adobe?

nohone said,

By that thinking, it was not Microsoft's fault that there was claimed Vista incompatibilities with drivers and software. It was the fault of the device and software manufacturers.

It was the Software and Device manufactures fault. Quickbooks is not going to patch a 1-3 year old software when they have a new version on the market, they dont make money that way. HP or Lexmark is not going to make new drivers for a printer when they have a new printer on the market, they dont make money that way. ANY software company is not going to rewrite their sofware FOR FREE when they can just make a new version and sell it, they do not make money that way