You guys are still blaming Adobe? Even late into 2007, there are still small shareware developers of popular Mac titles posting updates that said "New: Universal Binary" in their release notes. These were developers with applications weighing in at just a few megabytes!

If Adobe can beat them to Universal Binary by months with its gigabyte juggernauts, then Adobe's doing pretty good. They've obviously got Microsoft beat by several miles. I believe the when they say Leopard could require updates, because nobody has a completed version of Leopard ready for testing. Other developers just aren't saying it.

You are so not comparing shareware developers with commercial developers.

So Adobe develops their software on the side of their day job? What pray tell is their day job then? Collecting upgrade fees? Buying up their competition? :P

C'mon.

Maybe Quark deserves another look.

Many of these comments are just plain stupid. As a software developer myself, I won't be claiming that my company's products are Leopard compatible until we've tried them *WITH THE RELEASED VERSION*.

The fact is that Apple could change something major at the last minute, or could be holding information about some features back. We can't rely on (and never have been able to rely on) the developer seeds as a way to test that our software will work on the final release.

So Adobe are certainly doing the right thing here. They aren't saying that they won't work. But they aren't saying that they will either.

Adobe doesn't have a final copy yet. No one does. Because it's not finished. End of story.

Most existing apps work fine in Leopard, so i've been hearing. Unlike Vista vs XP, it's quite similar to Tiger underneath, should break hardly any apps.

You tell me that you have a 450 page book ready to go out and your considering upgrading to a NEW OS the day it comes out? Not very smart business wise if you ask me. Adobe screwed Apple when the intel machines came out...Adobe forgets that Apple made them who they are.

Adobe's software is not exactly know for stability on the Mac. If you are wondering what I'm talking about, just try to use Acrobat or Reader with Adobe's latest and greatest Live Cycle products. The software crashes so often that it is almost unusable on the Mac. The same holds true for Adobe's Digital Editions on the Mac. I wish Adobe would decide one way or the other about their Mac development.

I agree with Adobe. CS3 is a large complicated suite of applications. Giving developers less then six weeks to play with the final version seems to be cutting it pretty close.

I think Adobe sometimes gets an undeservedly bad rap from many Mac users. Sure Carbon was supposed to be temporary, but Apple's Developer tools never caught up to the tools companies like Microsoft and Adobe were using to write their applications. Specifically, Codeweaver. To write Universal application both Microsoft and Adobe had to dump Codeweaver.

Moreover, Apple surprised everybody with the we are moving to Intel announcement. Apple then finished the transition in less then half the publicly announced timeframe. This was all happening while Adobe was trying to figure out how to integrate Macromedia's products.

Adobe's software isn't that stable on Windows either. I've had numerous crashes in XP. Which is funny considering that Adobe is Microsoft's b*tch. You'd think they'd get it right for big daddy, but alas even that is few and far between.

your an idiot sosumi1981, adobe products work great on XP. If your having crashing problems, maybe you need to learn how to use the computer or something.

Yes, I am going to compare Adobe with shareware developers. When the Mac community criticizes Adobe for being a year late to UB, and then Mac shareware authors come to the UB party six months or more after Adobe with applications that are infinitesimal in size, after the Mac community said how EASY it was to convert them, you know it can't have been that easy. What was their excuse for being over a year late?

Go ahead and give Quark another look. They have been 10x worse to the Mac community. Just ask anyone who got screwed on the PowerPC upgrade price, or the extremely late OS X version that didn't work right (why people are still running Quark 5 on old G4s today).

Yes, you are going to compare shareware developers to Adobe. No, no one is going to take any of your comments seriously.

"your an idiot sosumi1981, adobe products work great on XP. If your having crashing problems, maybe you need to learn how to use the computer or something."

Well there's intelligence for you. Maybe I should learn how to use a computer or something, because some guy who's too scared to log in thinks Adobe products work great on XP. Sorry if I disagree you little pansy a**. But hey keep up the cool posts Mr. Coolie McCoolson.

I think Adobe should fail one system at a time. In my experience CS 3 doesnt work properly on the current OS and Intel hardware. If Adobe wants me, or anyonr else to believe what they are saying here, than earning that credibility starts with showing me a functional piece of software (and no, PS 6 and AI 8 are no longer acceptable for this purpose) on the current OS, which they have had plenty of time to work with.

my new idol.

Adobe CS suites are already buggy and I think adding Leopard to the mix will only make things worse.

I appreciate that Adobe can't test against an OS that doesn't exist yet in final form, but I still have memories of the Adobe presentation of the Photoshop that had supposedly been recompiled over a weekend to run on OSX.

Adobe is following Microsoft in many ways, particularly in its bloated and confused software, which I think has gone beyond the ability of its programmers to manage. But this is no obstacle to the constant hyping up from the marketing departments.

After many years of study I have determined that the 90% of dark matter that fills the universe is the bullshit that eminates from large corporations.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/03/21/leopard.speeds.up.cs3/

:-)