Wow
What a weird world this.
On days after finding myself agreeing with Cameron, I now find myself agreeing with Adobe.
It must be the rapture.
Adobe now says it loves Apple. But that's just a way of getting your attention so it can point out that it doesn't love Steve Jobs' pathological efforts to control the world's developers. On Thursday morning, Adobe launched a new ad campaign in newspapers across the globe that catches the eye with an apparent change in …
Adobe's just come with a lot of fluff. None of this answers the very real criticisms of Flash raised in Jobs's letter.
As for me, I'd "love" a website that didn't require me to have an buggy, insecure, privacy-unfriendly, CPU-intensive plug-in just to use it. At the very least let's not have it for video where it's completely unnecessary.
Of course, websites are beginning to realise that Flash is otiose for most of what they want -- but it's the availability of Apple's mobile devices that have made site owners begin to wake up and smell the coffee. This is why Adobe is angry at Apple, and this is why it keeps whining and whining and whining. It begins to see the beginning of the end for Flash. Too bad.
It's more its own fault than anyone else's. Adobe shut down its mobile business unit in 2007:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/adobe-flash-jobs/
Now it's scrambling to try to get something ready for release later this year. But it's all a bit late now.
for Adobe to use this advertising budget and hire some additional Q&A team members to speed up the delivery of a working, full-fledged, high quality Flash running most of the current Web content on a smartphone platform ?
That would definitely show that their technology is workable in the mobile space and that Jobs is wrong.
The ad campaign is just too vague and defensive to be effective in influencing anyone (and clearly abusing that O word).
I recently purchased an iPad for ad hoc personal use eg put into a suitcase going on holiday so I could confirm/change flights etc
I was appalled to find that when I visited the Delta web site to change my seat, I couldnt scroll - why? Because Apple has not included Flash
Flash is a "given" and it appears that Apple is returning to the olde proprietary days when standard software didnt run on their OS.
iPad is a great toy - it cant be treated as a serious tool if he doesnt support the most popular , standard software.
You bought an iPad assuming it would have Flash on it! (or that's the claim).
Where have been living for the past few years? Outer Mongolia?
Apple's mobile devices don't support Flash (or any other plug-ins); they haven't supported Flash. There hasn't even been any version of Flash to go on them. Everyone has known this since 2007 when the iPhone came out.
Adobe now say they will have the full version of Flash running on a mobile platform LATER THIS YEAR -- namely, on Android. In demonstrations Flash on Android is still crashing and won't work at all with many sites, so perhaps they won't. But you thought to find it on an iPad as of now ...
"Apple is returning to the olde proprietary days"
What sort of nonsense is that? Flash *is* proprietary.
it's also profoundly trashy and unwanted technology. It's also becoming more and more obvious that it is unnecessary: if it were not Adobe wouldn't be needing to whine. They're whining because websites are making other arrangements for delivering content that don't include them and they don't like staring at their own irrelevance. They think whining will help.
@ /etc .. iPads are for people that wouldn't necessarily know or give a shit about how a website or web app is made, they just want it to work ( read Paris )
I thought Apple was about "It just works" .. guess not anymore
I've never had a bit of problem with Flash on a Windows box , though I can understand the frustration of others, having the experience of running CPU hogging, slow starting PhotoShop
@ Sean ... lol ...
W3C doesn't set web standards, the browser makers do .. an organization that makes rules is irrelevant if it has no enforcement method
@ all .. test ..
when you think of Paris and "Open", what do you think of ? .. definition seems clear <]:-0
Flash is a de facto standard, in the most bleeding obvious sense of the phrase. The Flash specification may not be found in the archives of the W3C, but it's presence is ubiquitous, ipso facto it's a standard.
While most readers should be aware of the Apple-Adobe spat, the average computer user certainly doesn't give a rats-ass about Apple's problems. I'm certain most wouldn't be able to tell you that Flash doesn't run on the iPhone or iPad. Statistically speaking, that's pretty likely, with the Safari only accounting for just over 5% of all browsers (iToys included).
What is the freaking obsession with Apple? Someone explain it (and don't say it just works...arg).
Yes, they are asshats for demanding flash to scroll.
Likewise, anyone who builds a browser tool that is incapable of viewing one of the most commonly used technologies on the internet (not far behind HTML and CSS...) is a monumental asshat.
Targetting that product as something which "just works" for non-technical people who dont realise the sites they use 24/7 are flash based is even more asshatish.
Quote: "I was appalled to find that when I visited the Delta web site to change my seat, I couldnt scroll - why? Because Apple has not included Flash"
That should read, "... why? Because Delta didn't have their site built to meet the very basics of the accessibility guidelines".
If your customers can't perform an action on your website because you have expected an optional, non-ubiquitous plug-in to be present on your customer's systems then you have FAILED as the owner of your web site.
What you are saying here is that Delta is telling every disabled, screen reading user of their site to FUCK OFF, because a Flash only option is an instant accessibility failure.
But none of it negates the fact that the iPad is a borked browsing tool by preventing users from using Flash if they want to.
The site owner *should* take steps to ensure the broadest possible accessibility. I agree.
The browser maker (hardeware maker in this case) should also take steps to make it work as much as possible.
Like it or not, like Apple, flash is near ubiquitous - certainly as much as any other technology. Ignoring it kind of undermines the "it just works" claims of Apple.
Mobile Safari does. It is an excellent standards compliant browser. It is not for Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, Opera or any of the other browser/hardware developers out there to 'take steps to make it work as much as possible...' with Flash at all. They all offer a product that renders HTML and JavaScript/JScript/ECMAScript as recommended by the W3C and mandated by ISO/IEC 15445:2000 and ISO/IEC 16262:200. Some browsers are extensible via plug-ins, some (Mobile Safari) are not. It isn't, as you claim, the responsibility of the browser (or for that matter, the OS) developer to make sure Adobe's product works on their platform, neither is there a legal, moral or commercial reason to do so. The responsibility of making a website accessible lies solely with the designer/developer and/or the site owner just as the responsibility of making Flash stable and secure lies solely with Adobe.
Like it or not, Flash isn't a recognised standard. Nothing that you say can change this fact, irrespective of it apparent ubiquity, which I find HIGHLY dubious if I'm honest. Suggesting that ~90% of the internet (as Adobe have) depends of Flash is absolute bullshit. There are some sites that depend on Flash that get a high volume of traffic, but to say that nearly all websites *need* it is a lie, because as things stand, *no* sites _need_ Flash--quite a number tat use it as the design and layout tool do so needlessly! Ultimately, whether it's 'near ubiquitous' or not is moot. It's not what browsers are designed to do, that's *why* it's a plug-in.
Reminds me of Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate campaign which saw their employees wandering around wearing t-shirts with an American flag with the stars replaced by a PC. Same whinging mentality.
For a company who loves all platforms funny how Adobe killed FrameMaker on the Mac in 2004, a few years later made a Linux beta which they then refused to release. Apple still uses FrameMaker 6.0 for their technical documentation, have a look at the document properties in a recent user guide PDF.
Adobe are the lovely company who decided to only allow upgrades from the three previous versions of a product, used to be practically any previous product. Try getting a cross grade between platforms too.
You comment about Preview amused me.... Hello I'm "Mr Hackzor" (is that the right term to use?) I need to write/find an exploit thats going to take down most of the machines that are connected to the internet. Shall I do one for Preview... or shall I do it with Acrobat Reader that most (note the word most before you reply.... the word was most, just incase you forgot.. I've used that word twice now) of the world use..........
Your post amused me because you reminded me about the word 'most' twice! It's as if you were a frustrated coder at Adobe wondering how to make something read, yes read, I'll say it again read (not write or execute) PDFs. You know what though, I'm sure there's a great reason for all the updates.
I was using freehand a lot and after adobe bought macromedia i was afraid they'd stop development of freehand and yes, it did happen. freehand was and still is the best sw for vectors and shapes much better than illustrator when it comes to 'easy of use' and guess what, those greedy bastards are still charging a lot for piece of software which wasn't updated for xxx years, link:
https://store2.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?store=OLS-UK&event=displayProduct&categoryPath=/Applications/FreeHand&distributionMethod=FULL
£370!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus, that is a dumb-ass idea! So, you are proposing a game of brinkmanship with a company who make in a month what you do in year, that is at least 12 times bigger than you financially? Not forgetting that this action instantly alienates at least half of your customer base, many of whom are openly looking for an excuse to seek an alternative from a company that doesn't understand the concept of cross grades! Do you people that reckon this is a winning strategy for Adobe actually *think* about this before you type it? *If* (and they really aren't that stupid) Adobe were to that, it'd be hostile take over attempt quicker than you can blink!
i'd say even more. most of the win copies out there are pirated where the most of the mac users actually pay for it.
and i wouldn't be even worried if that happens. if you look in the history and adobe premiere or lack of it on mac platform. final cut arrived and buried premiere on mac platform, no need for it.
even now you've got pretty cool app called pixelmator which allows you to do quite a lot what you usually do in photoshop - of course there are drawbacks and you cannot compare £50 app with photoshop but if you're a web designer not a dtp designer pixelmator could be all you need and it's fully written in objective C and cocoa framework and it's incredibly fast and easy to use - i've got trial version running now.
i don't believe adobe would abandon mac platform, they're not dumb.
and this we love apple campaign is rather pathetic
wait until you've been forced to use Photoshop on a Windows PC. The most fucking abysmal user experience outside of using Windows itself. No Mac user in their right mind would swap from Photoshop on the Mac to Photoshop on Windows, it is that painful. They would likely stick with their Mac and the last version Adobe released until the first truly viable alternative appeared - see Quark 4 for a prior real world example of how belligerent DTP pros can be.
Adobe wouldn't gain anything from doing and would lose everything as it would provide the impetus for people to finally abandon what has become a dead dog of a software package, just as they did with Quark.
I'm sure that many people will side with Adobe, simply on the basis that a lot of sites do insist on Flash, it's not reasonable to expect them all to change over quickly, and so if Apple makes it harder for them to convert, this will make it harder to surf the web with the iPad.
But, at the same time, many people will remember some sites that use too much Flash and take too long to open as a result, and wouldn't mind if there was a bit less of it around.
So for Adobe to aggressively take its case to the public seems to me to be just asking for a "plague on both your houses" reaction.
"At Adobe, we believe that the open flow of creativity, ideas, and information should be limited only by the imagination," the site says.
It then goes on to say "What we don't love, however, is fixing gaping security holes in our products, conducting internal security audits of our code, or making our code run on Linux without crashing."
Or at least it should.
I'd be behind Adobe 100% in this little war were it not for the tiny but nevertheless still important fact that Flash is total, utter crap, and has been crap for years, and Adobe doesn't appear to be interested in making it be anything other than crap.
I had occasion to visit the Cotswold Outdoors site today (http://www.cotswoldoutdoor.com). The whole thing is done in Flash. Why? There is NOTHING on this particular site that cannot be done with semantic HTML, CSS and JavaScript. Fine, more complex interactions are much harde at the moment and browser ubiquity is a way off, BUT (a big one) there are an awful lot of unnecessary Flash sites out there. I'd argue at least 80% of Flash sites don't need to be at all (hey, Adobe can pull figures out of their arse, so can I!)
I keep in touch with the guy who used to do marketing where I work. He's building a Flash site for his new employer. He doesn't want to do anything you couldn't do with CSS but he doesn't know anything about CSS. He was taught to use Flash at uni so Flash is what he uses.
He wasn't hired specifically to do the site btw, he's probably just the only one at the company who even knows what a website is. That goes some way to explaining why there are so many pointless Flash sites out there.
I'd have more sympathy for Adobe if their software was more reliable and didn't cost a squillion quid to buy. I stopped upgrading after CS3, when prices went stratospheric. Flash had for a long time been the only little local difficulty on my Mac, but now Illustrator needs restarting a couple of times a day.
Is Corel still in business with Mac apps?
Since the acquisition, Adobe hasn't done much to improve former Macromedia technologies: ColdFusion is dead, Dreamweaver is getting worse at every CS release , while Flash is still buggy, not secure and way too CPU-consuming.
Steve Jobs is not the only one who has griefs against Flash (MS also joined the bandwagon), he's just one of the few actors on the market who can actually afford to side against Adobe.
Why are we debating whether flash is a standard? It's not! But it is used on a large number of very useful websites, Apple talks about HTML 5 as the standard, well guess what Apple is pushing H.264 for video, which is not a standard. I think the issue for me is that Apple for whatever reason is deliberately making a large part of the web innaccessible to me. I love my iphone but I won't buy another apple product until Apple allows technologies in common use on the web to be used on their safari browser. Whether Apple allows Adobe technologies to build applications for the Apple Iphone is a completely different arguement.
I think H.264 is a standard, in that the specification is open and published. It's just not a 'free' standard (under certain circumstances -- it's free like the NHS is, rather than free like speech/beer, delete as applicable).
H.264 is not a current web standard; though may be when HTML5 is finalised (I think the debate right now is whether to choose H.264 and/or Ogg Theora as the standard codec for web video).
Flash, however, is completely closed and proprietary. Some people have tried to reverse engineer it (in the same way that OpenOffice will work with MS Office files). But that's down to a lot of hard work; not by having access to the standard.
Me? I think Flash sucks and can't wait for it to do. The transition period will be a bit painful; but then it was almost as painful when world+dog stuck Real Audio on their website. In those days I refused to put a Real Audio player anywhere near my PC for similar reasons to disliking Flash.
I am no fan of Adobe or its products. I HATE flash and always have - it's a pointless and annoying "thing" and Adobe's software is consistently crappy.
Apple on the other hand are just doing what Apple have always done - creating closed systems running closed services (and yes, I am a Mac user). However, since its re-incarnation some years ago, it is (as everyone knows) on a crusade to extend that closed-off control to pretty much anything it can - music, video, and now applications. The extra-annoying thing with Apple though seems to be the way it bangs on about freedom and openness and yet at the same time doing all it can to prevent and block such notions (I'm, thinking iTunes, H264, locking-down their hardware, etc etc).
And then there's good 'ol Microsoft who must be sitting on the sidelines watching this spat with glee, just like the rest of us. Nobody needs reminding of what MS are like and hat they do.
The point is, all these companies and may others besides have only their own interests at heart. None of them give a fig about "freedom", or "openness", on the web or anywhere else. Apple's and Adobe's arguments may be different, but it all amounts to the same thing - they are trying to protect their bottom-lines. And they are mostly prepared to do this regardless of the financial and social cost to their users. In fact it is much worse that, because what these companies do effects everyone that has anything at all to do with computers or the web, whether you use their particular products or not.
I've always found Apple to have a pretty light touch. Take OS installation as an example. I use both Windows and the Mac OS, and my experiences installing either of them has some marked differences.
With Windows (and practically any Adobe software) I'm asked pretty early on to enter a huge serial number, and then it has to repeatedly check the 'authenticity' of my purchase practically every time I update (and - as many have discovered to their cost - it doesn't always work). If disaster strikes, and your machine is completely knocked out, you have to go through hell to transfer the licenses onto a new machine. And while I'm trying to work, I'm constantly barraged by notifications and queries ("are you sure you want to do that", "look, I'm doing this for you", and "such and such has been plugged in/removed"). I feel under constant suspicion of being a thief and/or an idiot.
On the Mac, I fire up the installer and run it without any mention of serial codes. Nor does it make any subsequent checks. It's taken for granted that you legitimately purchased the software (and I love that). Likewise with Apple's software - just and install and go. If the machine dies, restore the lot from Time Machine onto a new Mac and you're up and running with absolutely no fuss. No secret communications with Apple, no monitoring - it's a real breath of fresh air. The OS also allows me to work with a bare minimum of intrusion, assuming that I know what I'm doing and only providing notification where I might really need to know (like the mouse is about to fail because the batteries are almost flat). And I have a wealth of free development resources at my fingertips, both proprietary and open-source including a great front-end for gcc and pre-installed libraries from a huge array of open-source projects. And Apple openly supports the installation of another OS, so I can bring together the best of all worlds into one machine.
All this debate seems to be about a phone (and more recently a tablet/e-reader/whatever). This is only one segment of Apple's line-up, and it's designed for a market largely populated by (tech) neophytes, i.e. people who don't know why it's bad idea to have an SSH installation with the default root password. Many iPad purchasers simply don't have (or desire) the know-how to manage a full lap-top. Apple is striving to produce something that 'just works' even for the person with no tech experience. Software like Flash doesn't have a good track record for 'just working'.
If freedom/control is a priority for you, buy one of Apples laptops and have all the freedom you like (run Flash too if you want). That's what it's designed to do. It's a far cry from the control Adobe/Microsoft exert over their customers!
...First up your comparing a pure software maker, with a hardware / software vendor. Therefore it very easy for Apple to get your software and go , yup it's a Mac, if this wasn't true, you could installl it on any old platform. For the likes of other companies, they have to say, ok it's a pc, but is it THE pc they have paid for it to be on, this is how they make their money.
"And I have a wealth of free development resources at my fingertips, ......both proprietary and open-source including a great front-end for gcc and pre-installed libraries from a huge array of open-source projects."
So LInux / Windows don't have these.
"And Apple openly supports the installation of another OS, so I can bring together the best of all worlds into one machine." Yes, but an utterly stupid arguement. Apple are happy for you to run Windows on a Mac, but run Mac OS on a non Mac and expect the lawyers to come a knocking. Many here will have dual boot Linux / Windows machines, so again I fail to see your point, MS don't give a shit what else you run on your pc, so long as your copy is legit, who cares? MS are happy to sell you Windows, because that's how they make money, Apple don't like to sell the OS, because they will not make a large mark up on the hardware.
"If freedom/control is a priority for you, buy one of Apples laptops and have all the freedom you like"...Ok I'd like an AMD processor please.
This isn't an anti Apple rant, more an a correction of you response.
I don't use an Apple, but that's my choice, i'm grown up enough to make a choice as are you...
For Flash Player, most developers start here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/faq.html
There are too many open source Flash players and editors to list, try Googling - Adobe's own Flash development platform (Flash Builder) is built on the Open Source Eclipse. Flash Studio is aimed at designers not developers.
I doubt Adobe are remotely threatened by GIMP/PDF creators (and a thousand other editors which support Adobe formats). Most people aren't going to fork out for CS5 and if there was no other means of editing their formats, people would gravitate elsewhere.
However much of SJ's piss and vinegar you regurgitate without checking, the fact is that PDF and Flash are so dominant because they are so well supported by non-Adobe products.
First of all, the cuteness of his holyness St. Jobs' open letter being on a page that requests to install quicktime, is just hilarious. As if Quicktime is so much more open that Flash? Right.
Then we have the nasty trick Adobe could actually pull to hurt Apple, might even help their bottomline, not hurt it (and at the same time leave some scars for his Holyness):
We all agree that the Creative Suite is ridiculously overpriced, and that the current price actually INCREASES piracy (since the enthusiast users, not fortune-500 ones, aren't very likely to go out and purchase CS5):
What if Adobe cut the price for the Creative Suite in half? This would mean a lot of the enthusiasts suddenly could afford going legal, and thus actually increasing sales for Adobe.
Then imagine Adobe only cutting the Windows version in half. This would mean that a new semi-decent workstation plus Adobe CS5 master collection for windows, would be cheaper than CS5 for a Mac. This _WOULD_ hurt Apple.
Just a clue.
Anon, for fear of the rabid response teams of the Church of St. Jobs.
As has already been pointed out, the UI in the Windows versions of Adobe products is pretty nasty compared to what the "Mac faithful" are accustomed to. Mac and Linux users have already been forced into that situation with Framemaker, and it's an unpleasant, frustrating experience.
I purchased the Adobe PDF package for windows 2k awhile ago.
About two-three years ago I tried to upgrade.
NOTHING MADE Sense as to the numerous options confusing wording of how to upgrade then Openoffice came along and did not bother any longer
Then there is Adobe Reader - what a jewel. Nothing like your system not shutting down due to Adobe latching onto everything in the box for some reason and hanging up the entire system
I stay away from Adobe as much as I can. Don't care that my touch cannot view a few things.
Steve Jobs is right
...it does a whole raft of things fairly well. I block by default all Flash but it's there for when I need it. My main gripe is when video or sound auto-plays when you're on a page but that's not Adobe's fault, it's the developer thinking it's a great idea. It isn't. If I want to watch a video, I'll press play, just like I do on every other device.
Surely in the long term Apple will have to support Flash, if everyone else is. iPhone owners are always going on about how good their phone is. If it does less than the next person's then they'll be complaining about not having the best of the best (in their eyes, anyway). They'll simply abandon their shiny shiny pretty glossy phones and move to an Android-based phone or whoever.
Wait... Apple complain that Flash is a closed system?
Is this the same Apple that forbids people from installing their operating systems on hardware that wasn't bought from them?* The same Apple that forbids people from developing software for their hardware unless they pay the Apple tax?
The same Apple that has the cheek to charge actual money for a service pack that basically just allows the user to gain access to the 64-bit hardware that they have already paid for?
* I have no desire to use OSX, but with the whole "bound purchase" ruling situations that have been applied to MS, I don't see how it can be legal.
Facts
- HTML5 is not a standard (yet)
- H264 may be open but is not 'free' as in gratis. that codec is expensive. especially for content creators and its a cpu hog .
- Flash is not open , but there are non adobe players and flash creators a plenty.
What is the heart of the matter is simply this : Adobe flash allows you to make a product ( game , movie , whatever ) and publish it to different targets with the click of a button. Windows, Linux , Android , Windows Mobile , Symbian , iPhone, iPad (ehh scrap those last two, since Steve said No). For developers this is heaven. Code once, deploy everywhere ( just what java promised but never fully succeeded at)
Apple is sitting in a comfotable position. People buy iPhones and iPads because of all the apps. If the same apps become available for non apple platforms you are beasically steamrolling the playing field. Now it doesn't matter who's kit you buy. If i can buy a device at half the cost that does the same i'd be an idiot to throw little green pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents in Apple'ss general direction. There goes Apple ... their stuff is always way pricier.
So, by blocking this cross compilation you force the developers to pick sides. Apple is betting that the developers will pick Apple because of the dominant platform for now. It will also block or slow down the uptake of other platforms. On the other hand, if the developers side with non-apple... the future is grim for said company.
Everybody is talking about the Adobe Flash, but there are at least 3 or 4 other of these cross platform compilers out there that are heavily used for iPhone development. We seem to forget they they are also blocked with this terms revision by Apple !
just my 2 cents...
Adobe screwed up and won't have a viable cross-platform mobile Flash, probably for years. So they thought they'd let Flash developers cross-build for iPhone while they wait; and sell in Apple's App store to Apple's customers, to be 100% ready for the time when mobile Flash is viable - on maybe 200 million iPhone OS devices - but 2 billion others.
Not surprising Apple said "Go bootstrap your own ecosystem if you want to save Flash and make our platform irrelevant."
It's 13 years since Apple broadcast its intention to change the world with the "Think Different" campaign. They've barely arrived where they want to be, and there's no way they'll immediately and freely give Adobe the resources to help break up the platform, as happened with Mac.
Jobs has done a great Job (hah!) of blending two related but distinct issues, and El Reg's Orlowski has continued the confusion (obviously, Jobs did it deliberately, not sure why Orlowski did).
The first is the merits (or lack thereof) of the Flash environment for developing web apps.
The second is the merits (or lack thereof) of the Flash player for deploying those apps.
Claims that the player side is "closed" are just false; others have pointed to FOSS players. Yet that is what Jobs wants to convey. And all this started because Adobe produced something that would translate Flash apps into something THAT WASN'T FLASH, but would run on the iThings.
Comments about the quality of the developer environment are all very well, but like it or not, I'm not seeing anything like the Flash developer environment for HTML5/CSS/H.264 *at the moment*. They will come, I'm sure, but you need more than tools, you need classes in tech and design schools, you need confidence that the thing will prevail, etc.
Finally, Jobs makes a big deal about how Flash crashes Macs etc. So why doesn't he spend a little of that mountain of cash in having his engineers make the FOSS Flash players run on Macs? Oh, right... he doesn't care about that. He cares about the cross-platform nature of Flash. So... what do we think Apple is going to do to block cross-platform development of HTML/CSS/H.264 apps? Hmmm..
Not sure why so many people think Photoshop has any relevance on the Flash saga, but:
The UI of PS (at least since PS CS3) is virtually identical regardless of whether you use a Mac or a PC. OK, so you have to substitute the Apple key for the Alt key (or the Alt for the Apple), and the app-control mechanisms are native to the platform (so minimize/switch window/maximize etc. operate as the platform user would expect). Granted, this last bit can make it harder for a Mac user to work with PC Photoshop (and vice versa), but it's the exactly same with (say) Firefox!
(Actually, I happen to believe that the windowing capabilities of CS2 was *better* on a PC than on a Mac, but Adobe made them common with CS3).