When will CS3 be fully compatible with Leopard?

I haven't read any definitive answers to this question.
Adobe says when Acrobat 8.1.2 Pro is released in late Jan08: Leopard FAQ
But the 8.1.2 update this month didn't say anything about Leopard...
Does anyone know? We've been waiting to migrate to 10.5 for a couple of months now and CS3 is the last hold-up.

I understand CS3 came out before Leopard. But Leopard is a whole new operating system, they give core developers like Adobe months and months to make their software workable for the new OS. Third party developers always take alphas and betas from the OS builds, do they not? Is it the requirement that Apple make each and every software piece compatible with it's OS? So, they in essence have to do the third party's developer's work?
Further, if it's not compatible, then what grounds does Adobe have telling customers that it is. That would be a lie, then, wouldn't it? I'm just sayin. And I don't have Leopard OR CS3 yet, but I sure don't like the fact that Adobe is being pretty quiet about these issues--it takes someone some digging to figure this out, then they find engineers who are basically claiming it's not compatible, and to wait for likely 18 months until 10.6, and if I were Adobe's legal dept. I'd probably delete this post.
As far as *everyone* having issues, it doesn't seem to be the case--I am reading several threads where many have figured it out. Maybe I'll be lucky.
I can certainly see if Apple changed the specs (I'm not sure what this means, do they not provide seeds to you?), Adobe having a LOT to complain about. But I have not seen evidence of this other than an Adobe engineer calling the OS Buggy. Proof?
I think Apple being quiet about it is that they don't allow their staff to blame others in blanket statements on forums in direct contradiction to what they warrant in writing the software to be compatible with. Usually things like these come from press releases or a kb. Or Steve Jobs <g>
Buko, your blanket statement about CS3 being perfect in Tiger doesn't seem to wash. A quick look through the Apple forums and the forums here pretty much show that not to be the case. What seems to be clear is that Adobe's registration and auto update program are the problem. I won't go so far as to say they are poorly written and executed, but the scores of people who have had and continue to have numerous issues IN TIGER certainly point in that direction.
I suppose we could blame Apple for that, too?

Similar Messages

When will iPhone 5 be compatible with Brazilian internet 4G

I live in Brazil and would like to have an iPhone 5. But (what I thought unthinkable) I got to know it's not compatible with Brazilian internet 4G. When will iPhone 5 be compatible with our 4G? Is Apple doing anything about this? I see no point in buying an expensive an state of the art phone and not to be able to use it with 4G. And about other devices like iPad and iPod?
Thank you.

We don't know. However, what Apple knows and is willing to share regarding 4G/LTE compatibility is found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937 (updated recently).

When will you make Firefix compatible with Google tool bar?

Clicked your update in error. Now can't use Google toolbar.
When will you fix your browser

You have it backwards. Google (and other 3rd-party vendors) must make their products compatible with the browser.
'''Some Background Information''' 
Included with every Firefox extension is a file named install.rdf. In that file is a parameter "em:maxVersion" which indicates the maximum Firefox version with which the extension '''has been tested and approved by the developer''' (Google, in this case). Only the developer (Google) is responsible for changing that parameter. Firefox enforces that parameter.
That said. Google and all other developers know where to find the Firefox release schedule for new versions and where to find the test versions (beta) to use to test their product. The location of the release schedule and the beta versions '''is no secret'''. Firefox 5, and all other versions, underwent several weeks of beta testing, during which third-party developers (Google) had an opportunity to do their testing and make necessary changes to make their product(s) compatible. In addition to the 4 weeks of beta testing for Firefox 5, Google has had an additional 19 days since the release of Firefox 5, to make their product compatible. '''Ask Google what is keeping a compatible release from being introduced.'''
'''Google MAY be ceasing support for their toolbar in Firefox.''' See the list of supported browsers in the following:
*http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1111588#toolbar_info
'''An add-on that may help''' 
Many users have found that installing the following add-on will restore some (maybe all) functionality for Google's toolbar.
*'''''Add-on Compatibility Reporter''''': https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

When will creative labs become compatible with AAC fil

I've been using itunes to upload music and I wanted to know when creativelabs will be compatible with the itune friendly AAC files.

Time to rip this post apart.
<<I'll hand it to you for persistence, although I don't know why you CONTINUALLY try to disrupt a tech forum for Creative with pro-Apple BS.>>
Pro-Apple BS? How was pointing out that AAC is an open format pro-Apple? It's not. Don't make up things. All I did was point out that AAC is open and that it can be played on any OS, or any MPEG-4 compatible software or hardware.
<<AAC is a proprietary format. It is, as you should know, based on the audio specification for MPG4, which came out over 6 years ago. Dolby Labs controls the licensing of this format, the codec and the chips to decode and encode it. The fees are substantially higher than those for WMA, and of course, than MP3.>>
Stop getting your information from that post on Napster that I debunked MONTHS ago. I proved that wrong and you know very well that it's wrong. Anyway, Dolby does control the licensing for MPEG-4 AAC, yes. However, licensing fees are not anything like you or that Napster post said. I provided information back then, so you can go back and look for yourself, if you're still choosing to throw your money away on Napster. If licensing fees are so bad, then why are there so many freeware players that play AAC files? MPEG-4 AAC files! Why? Why can I download a FREE operating system (Linux), and use completely free software to rip and play AAC files? Exactly. iTunes is freeware you know. Why can I download it for free and rip and play AAC files? Surely Apple isn't going to front the bill for millions of people to use iTunes to just rip, organize, and play their music.
<<AAC is not the logical successor to MP3. If only WMA or AAC are considered, then WMA is the clear winner in that race. >>
How is WMA the clear winner? Besides the fact that WMA sounds noticably inferior at any bitrate.... Even HE-AAC mops the floor with WMA9 Pro at low bitrates. Anyway, how is WMA the clear winner? AAC compatible digital audio players control *90%* of the hard dri've market, 43% of the flash market, and a combined total of over *70%* of the entire market. Let's not forget that the number one online music store, which controls over 70% of the market, uses AAC as it's format of choice, and the next biggest online store behind very distant number 2 Napster is using AAC as well. Soon Napster will be launching a "music to go" rental service that targets ALL platforms. Can you guess the file format of choice? AAC
<<In fact, WMA9 Pro is under consideration for the next generation "CD" compression. This, along with DVD-A and SACD. Note there is nothing from Dolby under consideration at all. >>
hahahaha says who? Actually, since MPEG-4 is part of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specs, AAC is already part of the deal And, right now, SACD has the same market penetration that CD at the same point in it's lifetime. So SACD is well on it's way to becoming the "next CD". As it looks right now, SACD will become the CD format of "tomorrow", while the iTunes Music Store is handling the current "CD quality" music business just fine. As it stands though, honestly, it will be a combination of two things. SACDs for audiophiles, and iTunes-like downloads for everyone else.
Also, Dolby only handles the licensing portion of AAC. AAC was developed by a number of companies, including Sony. Sony has a stake in SACD, blu-ray, and any optical disc technology that comes out. So I can guarantee you that they will not let AAC die, even if it kills their precious atrac3/atrac3plus format.
And another thing to consider is that the recording industry wants a standard across all platforms for digtial music downloads. And considering 70% of the market is AAC compatible, and by the end of this year, a certain online music store will have passed over $b in total revenue, you can imagine which format will win.
<<Even assuming the original poster meant he wants to load non-DRM ("Fairplay") tracks on his Creative player, it will not likely happen so long as Apple is intent on blocking 3rd parties from using purchased iTunes songs on any other player.>>
What does iTunes purchased songs have to do with AAC files ripped from anyother source? Exactly. Using Apple is an excuse for companies to not support AAC. It's their loss though. If Creative would support AAC, they would have opened themselves up to the market of millions of people who do use iTunes and Real Player 0+ to rip their CDs.
<<It is unlikely Creative will spend the license money for a purpose so limited as self-ripped AAC files when there are other free alternati'ves to somebody ripping their own CD's.>>
How are AAC files limited? AAC files can be played and ripped on any platform. If you want to talk about limited, you have to look at WMA. It only works under one OS and only certain players can play it. And what free alternati'ves are there? MP3 licensing isn't free. WMA licensing isn't free. If you're selling a player for profit, you HAVE to pay for WMA and MP3 decoding capabilities.
<<AAC is a good-sounding compressed format, but for mass acceptance it will always remain a niche unless Apple opens things up and Dolby lightens up on their expesi've licensing.>>
Mass acceptance? AAC has already been accepted by the masses. Over 350 million songs sold in AAC, and 70% of the digital audio player market is AAC compatible. I think players that DON'T support AAC are currently in the niche market
<<Something good like Oog Voorbis has a better chance of becoming the successor to MP3, I think, and even that remains a niche at this point. >>
Ogg Vorbis will never replace MP3s. First off, the sound quality isn't as good as AAC. Secondly, Ogg Vorbis requires a processor with a FPU. FPU require more battery power, so battery life is affected significantly. And most importantly, there are no CONVENIENT Ogg Vorbis encoders. Not to mention Ogg Vorbis still has a lot of bugs that need worked out. They only recently worked out a bug that was causing significant high end distortion that greatly affected the sound quality of the files. Plus Ogg Vorbis has no DRM container.
Also, transcoding a file degrades the sound quality significantly.

When will Firefox 6. be compatible with Blackboard?

Your newest version of Firefox will not allow me to login to Blackboard. I am an instructor using Blackboard to teach online. The previous version worked well with Blackboard.

1. Firefox 4.0 includes the Sync feature, not need for the Firefox Sync extension.
2. Check with Nokia for an update for whatever Ovi Suite uses to interface with Firefox, like an extension or plugin. Addon developers are responsible for keeping their stuff compatible with Firefox updates.

When will you make adobe compatible with Dreamweaver

I'm a UI Designer. I know light html and CSS. I don't want to have to figure out all the latest browser compatibilities, and I want to be able to avoid learning javascript/jquery but be able have cool effects in my website or client websites like parallax scrolling, lightbox, etc.
If you went about this in an intelligent manner, you would make this compatible with Dreamweaver for designers to update, for UI/UX designers to use as high fidelity prototypes that can be handed off to developers later, and for designers to import into Dreamweaver to finesse styles and change elements. If this doesn't happen, I can easily see this becoming a dinosaur like Web Objects Fusion and clients will be left with obsolete products.
PLEASE make this a useful product that plays well with Dreamweaver!

You have it backwards. Google (and other 3rd-party vendors) must make their products compatible with the browser.
'''Some Background Information''' 
Included with every Firefox extension is a file named install.rdf. In that file is a parameter "em:maxVersion" which indicates the maximum Firefox version with which the extension '''has been tested and approved by the developer''' (Google, in this case). Only the developer (Google) is responsible for changing that parameter. Firefox enforces that parameter.
That said. Google and all other developers know where to find the Firefox release schedule for new versions and where to find the test versions (beta) to use to test their product. The location of the release schedule and the beta versions '''is no secret'''. Firefox 5, and all other versions, underwent several weeks of beta testing, during which third-party developers (Google) had an opportunity to do their testing and make necessary changes to make their product(s) compatible. In addition to the 4 weeks of beta testing for Firefox 5, Google has had an additional 19 days since the release of Firefox 5, to make their product compatible. '''Ask Google what is keeping a compatible release from being introduced.'''
'''Google MAY be ceasing support for their toolbar in Firefox.''' See the list of supported browsers in the following:
*http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1111588#toolbar_info
'''An add-on that may help''' 
Many users have found that installing the following add-on will restore some (maybe all) functionality for Google's toolbar.
*'''''Add-on Compatibility Reporter''''': https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

When will firefox 4 be compatible with adobe acrobat x pro?

I am missing the convert icon from Adobe Acrobat X Pro when I upgrade to Firefox 4, so I had to go back to the earlier version of Firefox.

You will need to ask Adobe about this, they will need to update their add-on to make it work.

When will Bridge CS6 be compatible with 5DMKIII files?

Lightroom is right. Why not Bridge? Tired of DNG conversion.

Lightroom is right. Why not Bridge? Tired of DNG conversion.
To my knowledge this is already the case.
Be sure to have the latest ACR (7.1) installed. Open PS and under the menu Photoshop check about Plug in and see if you have ACR 7.1 installed. If not update and you should be OK
By the way, LR and Bridge/PS use the same ACR engine and I don't understand your objection to DNG. I convert all my files to DNG to great satisfaction, using Adobe Photodownloader for this including rename, back up and metadata template in one go.

Device Central CS3 NOT compatible with Leopard

I just upgraded to OS X Leopard and Device Central CS3 is no
longer usable. OS X says it is "not supported on this
architecture," as if the machine was PowerPC (it is an Intel
MacBook Pro). All the Adobe support docs says DC is compatible so I
don't know how to resolve this situation.

CS3 device central is fully compatible with Leopard ...for me its running fine

Tried updating firefox but it is not compatible with leopard op. If I try to re-install the older version will my bookmarks still be there?

Tried updating firefox but it is not compatible with leopard op. If I try to re-install the older version will my bookmarks still be there?

Current Firefox versions require a Mac with an Intel processor and OS X 10.6.
Firefox 16 is the last version that runs on Intel Mac OS X 10.5.
You would have to update to OS X 10.6 to be able to use current Firefox releases.
Last Firefox for Mac OS X 10.5:
*http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/16.0.2/mac/
*https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/36.0/system-requirements/
*https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/16.0/system-requirements/

Is Quicktime 7.7.4 fully compatible with Windows 8

Could you confirm if Quicktime 7.7.4 is fully compatible with Windows 8? As the apple website doesn't list windows 8 in the compatible system requirements when you look up quicktime 7.7.4. I'm just updating my itunes and Ive been a longstanding user of quicktime and quicktime pro and would like to continuing to use these products if they fully work with Windows 8. I find quicktime pro one of the best video playback products around. I've just replaced my laptop with a new one running Windows 8. Thank you :-)

Microsoft advises that all versions of PSE except versions 1, 3, 5 & 6 will work with Windows 8. The best option is a new computer with W8 and then do a clean install of Elements. Some difficulties may arise if upgrading the operating system on top of existing software. In those circumstances make sure you have your original disks or your download package, in case a re-install is necessary.
Microsoft Windows 8 compatibility.

Is a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V fully compatible with a Macbook?

Is a Sony Cybershot DSC-HS9V fully compatible with a Macbook?

I have a Sony Cybershot DSC-W350. It has never ejected correctly from either of my Macs. I had a Macbook running Snow Leopard, and now have a Macbook Pro running Maverick. I always get the "disk was not ejected correctly" message, even though I drag it to the trash, yadita, yadita. The most recent surprise was when the camera was automatically ejected before I was done using iPhoto, and was (of course) "not ejected correctly". If anyone has a fix I am listening closely! I always thought it was probably the driver, but don't know if it is a Mac or Sony thing.

Is the headset hs-20 fully compatible with the nok...

hi
just wanted to know whether the headset hs-20 is fully compatible with the nokia n93 phone. Can i play, skip, forward etc tracks using the remote control provided with the hs-20 or do I have to do these funtions from the mobile phone itself.
I am planning to buy this headset, so any information will be very useful.
thanks

johnfino wrote:
i have tried a reset and a restore, still nothing.would a service on my touch fix it
Although someone (probably not Apple) could take a look at it, the cost to you may not be money well spent since the likelihood of fixing this may be slim -- it may actually cost less to buy a refurb 3G Touch than repair your 2G.
But you mentioned resetting and restoring it -- did you load your last backup when you restored it? Perhaps your backup is corrupted, so restoring and re-loading the backup will just perpetuate the problem. Try restoring the Touch but set it up as a new iPod (don't select the iPod's current name/ backup at the end of the restore process).
If that doesn't help, then you're probably out of luck.

Is the version PHP 5.2.6 fully compatible with version OCI8 1.2.5?

Good Morning everybody:
The different versions of PHP and OCI8 under oracle documentation are:
To PHP 5.2.7: OCI8 1.2.5 (Oracle Client 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g)
To PHP 5.2.7: OCI8 1.2.5 (Oracle Client 10g, 11g)
To PHP 4.3.9: OCI8 1.3.4 (Oracle Client 9iR2, 10g, 11g)
To PHP 5.2.5: OCI8 1.2.3 (Oracle Client Inbuilt Oracle Database 10g client)
The information of my phpinfo() is php version 5.2.6 and oci8 version 1.2.5
The tests that I have done until now, with these versions look ok, but I have a doubt, because the version of OCI 1.2.5 need the version of PHP 5.2.7, and I have the version of PHP 5.2.6
Although You enable the extension oci8 since PHP (php.ini), really it is generated when you install the Oracle Client 10g (in my environment)
If I would have some problems, would I have to download the version PHP 5.2.7? do you think? do you think that everything OK with versión PHP 5.2.6 and versión OCI8 1.2.5? are there some people that they are working with versión PHP 5.2.6 and versión OCI8 1.2.5 and without any problem?
Thank you very much and best regards.

See the duplicate post is the version PHP 5.2.6 fully compatible with version OCI8?

Is Lightroom 5.2 fully compatible with PS CS6?

Based on http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1308132?tstart=0 I decided to add each question seperately:
Hello, I'm quite interested in buying Lightroom 5.2. I tried the RC which ran out now. Yet, I have a several questions that I can't really find good conclusive answers to, that I'd like to get answered before buying LR. Please don't write maybe like this or that (assumptions), since I don't want to start my whole workflow and then realize that I have to change everything around, so please answer, if you know for sure that something works and you are, preferably, using that method too.
Is Lightroom 5.2 fully compatible with PS CS6? E.g. some ACR 8.2 stuff only works with Lightroom AFAIK. Will that mean that I can't edit them in PS? Is there a list of the exact edits I shouldn't make, if I want to be able to edit in PS?

Is Lightroom 5.2 fully compatible with PS CS6?
Yes
E.g. some ACR 8.2 stuff only works with Lightroom AFAIK.
AFAIK, this is incorrect
Will that mean that I can't edit them in PS?
You most certainly can send photos from Lightroom 5 to CS6 and do any editing that is possible in either program

When will CS3 be fully compatible with Leopard?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for