<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Adobe CS4/CS3/CS2 Compatibility?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/2009/04/adobe-cs4cs3cs2-compatibility/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/2009/04/adobe-cs4cs3cs2-compatibility/</link>
	<description>Printing and design news and tips for designers and businesses alike.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 10:52:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dazario</title>
		<link>http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/2009/04/adobe-cs4cs3cs2-compatibility/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>dazario</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 10:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astroprint.com.au/astroblog/?p=84#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Hi Juan,

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a lengthy and detailed response. I agree yes, that Adobe does need to figure out a way to sell it&#039;s product, but I think they need to find more productive ways of doing this. They already are doing some amazing stuff. Like the Adobe Roadshow for example, which I attended recently for the CS4 launch and I was really impressed with the lengths that they went to in order to showcase the new features of their product. The also do online live training sessions and product launches, with virtual festivals and all sorts of digital &#039;wow&#039;.  All this stuff is great and is the perfect means of promotion.

My point is that their market is an industry which relies on collaboration, and their latest release of software (with particular reference to Indesign) puts a solid obstacle in the way of this. Backwards compatibility is only available to for users of CS3. As owner of a design agency I can tell you now, being a CS4 user, you would think this is no problem. But what about when I need to collaborate with a CS3 user from another company? I have done the right thing by upgrading to CS4, but then I need to double handle my file and export an .INX for this &quot;troublesome non-upgrader&quot;. And what happens if I need to collaborate with a freelancer who only has CS2 (and I promise you there are many users out there who are still on CS2)? It&#039;s not possible. If I have, for example, started working on a magazine layout and wish to send the file to them to continue the work, I simply cannot send them my CS4 file or INX file as it will not work. So therein lies my frustration with this method of &quot;planned obsolescence&quot; - in theory it is worthy of consideration, but in practice it actually will also disadvantage those users who have spent the cash and upgraded to the new software. 

I agree that a company cannot pre-empt what their software features will be in the future, or in fact what their underlying programming code will look like (it has changed for CS4). But I didn&#039;t suggest this was possible in my article.

Fair point about reading the TOS for products that you purchase. I have to admit that is something that I was yet to do. But, I have just done so and cannot find reference to a point in time at which my license expires? (Digital version available here: http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/#desktop) So perhaps limited licenses apply to other software products, but for Adobe range it doesn&#039;t seem so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Juan,</p>
<p>Thanks for taking the time to provide such a lengthy and detailed response. I agree yes, that Adobe does need to figure out a way to sell it&#8217;s product, but I think they need to find more productive ways of doing this. They already are doing some amazing stuff. Like the Adobe Roadshow for example, which I attended recently for the CS4 launch and I was really impressed with the lengths that they went to in order to showcase the new features of their product. The also do online live training sessions and product launches, with virtual festivals and all sorts of digital &#8216;wow&#8217;.  All this stuff is great and is the perfect means of promotion.</p>
<p>My point is that their market is an industry which relies on collaboration, and their latest release of software (with particular reference to Indesign) puts a solid obstacle in the way of this. Backwards compatibility is only available to for users of CS3. As owner of a design agency I can tell you now, being a CS4 user, you would think this is no problem. But what about when I need to collaborate with a CS3 user from another company? I have done the right thing by upgrading to CS4, but then I need to double handle my file and export an .INX for this &#8220;troublesome non-upgrader&#8221;. And what happens if I need to collaborate with a freelancer who only has CS2 (and I promise you there are many users out there who are still on CS2)? It&#8217;s not possible. If I have, for example, started working on a magazine layout and wish to send the file to them to continue the work, I simply cannot send them my CS4 file or INX file as it will not work. So therein lies my frustration with this method of &#8220;planned obsolescence&#8221; &#8211; in theory it is worthy of consideration, but in practice it actually will also disadvantage those users who have spent the cash and upgraded to the new software. </p>
<p>I agree that a company cannot pre-empt what their software features will be in the future, or in fact what their underlying programming code will look like (it has changed for CS4). But I didn&#8217;t suggest this was possible in my article.</p>
<p>Fair point about reading the TOS for products that you purchase. I have to admit that is something that I was yet to do. But, I have just done so and cannot find reference to a point in time at which my license expires? (Digital version available here: <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/#desktop)" rel="nofollow">http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/#desktop)</a> So perhaps limited licenses apply to other software products, but for Adobe range it doesn&#8217;t seem so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juan</title>
		<link>http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/2009/04/adobe-cs4cs3cs2-compatibility/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Juan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 10:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astroprint.com.au/astroblog/?p=84#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Hey Dario,
Good article. I agree that the compatibility between versions of software (not just adobe, but all software) should be more open-minded and allow for forwards-  and backwards-compatibility.
However asking a company to pre-empt what their next batch of features is going to be 2+ years ahead of time is a bit far-fetched. And this is what would be required for an earlier version of a program to be fully compatible with a later version. Sure, you could go down the route of patching for further compatibility, but 2 or 3 releases down the track and things start getting really messy codewise.
It&#039;s called planned obsolescence - Adobe&#039;s not going to undercut their sales by making their products immortal. They&#039;re also not going to increase their support demands by continuing to offer support for outdated products.
Another problem with the &#039;patching&#039; idea for being able to view and not edit is that it is kind of redundant - If you give your colleague/client a CS4 .ai file and they open it in Illustrator CS2 with a patch that allows them to view and not edit, wouldn&#039;t it be better just to print them a pdf?
Also, a lot of the upgraded features don&#039;t just affect the element they&#039;re applied to but the surrounding elements, so - like Fireworks&#039;  handling of unavailable fonts - as soon as you touch an element that&#039;s effected, the program would have to deactivate that feature, thus voiding the whole point of the plugin.

Finally, you&#039;re only half-right about the terms of purchase when you buy adobe products - these products are licensed for a finite period of time, after which your access code expires and you&#039;re required to upgrade. If you&#039;re unsure, read the TOS and Licensing agreement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Dario,<br />
Good article. I agree that the compatibility between versions of software (not just adobe, but all software) should be more open-minded and allow for forwards-  and backwards-compatibility.<br />
However asking a company to pre-empt what their next batch of features is going to be 2+ years ahead of time is a bit far-fetched. And this is what would be required for an earlier version of a program to be fully compatible with a later version. Sure, you could go down the route of patching for further compatibility, but 2 or 3 releases down the track and things start getting really messy codewise.<br />
It&#8217;s called planned obsolescence &#8211; Adobe&#8217;s not going to undercut their sales by making their products immortal. They&#8217;re also not going to increase their support demands by continuing to offer support for outdated products.<br />
Another problem with the &#8216;patching&#8217; idea for being able to view and not edit is that it is kind of redundant &#8211; If you give your colleague/client a CS4 .ai file and they open it in Illustrator CS2 with a patch that allows them to view and not edit, wouldn&#8217;t it be better just to print them a pdf?<br />
Also, a lot of the upgraded features don&#8217;t just affect the element they&#8217;re applied to but the surrounding elements, so &#8211; like Fireworks&#8217;  handling of unavailable fonts &#8211; as soon as you touch an element that&#8217;s effected, the program would have to deactivate that feature, thus voiding the whole point of the plugin.</p>
<p>Finally, you&#8217;re only half-right about the terms of purchase when you buy adobe products &#8211; these products are licensed for a finite period of time, after which your access code expires and you&#8217;re required to upgrade. If you&#8217;re unsure, read the TOS and Licensing agreement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dazario</title>
		<link>http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/2009/04/adobe-cs4cs3cs2-compatibility/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>dazario</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astroprint.com.au/astroblog/?p=84#comment-13</guid>
		<description>*blushes* awww thanks mother :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*blushes* awww thanks mother <img src='http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patricia Paolni</title>
		<link>http://astroprint.com.au/astroblog/2009/04/adobe-cs4cs3cs2-compatibility/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Patricia Paolni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astroprint.com.au/astroblog/?p=84#comment-12</guid>
		<description>Hello sweetie
i read your blog...it was very interesting, concise and informed..very good ...wonderful...i&#039;m so proud of you</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello sweetie<br />
i read your blog&#8230;it was very interesting, concise and informed..very good &#8230;wonderful&#8230;i&#8217;m so proud of you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

