Is CS worth the trouble…?

MR
Posted By
morgan_robinette
Nov 1, 2003
Views
774
Replies
30
Status
Closed
Currently I am running 7 with a trillion plugins. Everything works like a charm. Would like to know if upgrading to CS is worth the trouble of removing all plugins and then re-installing?–irish

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 1, 2003
Only you can answer that. The new Photoshop CS has a bevy of new features. IMO, based on the work that *I* do, they are exciting features that I would love to have. But it depends on the work that you do.

For me, I’d first have to upgrade to XP, and then, there’s product activation – I wrestle with these every day, because, again, IMO, the new feature set is compelling.

If you are a serious photoshopper, you will likely either upgrade this one or the next one. If I didn’t object to Product Activation, and were in XP already, I would still be waiting to see what folks say, but then again, I’m not an "early adopter" type.
HD
hot_denim
Nov 1, 2003
Worth ?…….Only YOU can answer the question of worth and trouble yourself. I.E. Do you require the new features….
DP
Daryl Pritchard
Nov 2, 2003
Morgan,

In many cases you do not have to reinstall your plugins. Rather, you can move all 3rd party plugins to a new folder, place that preferably outside the PS7 installation path and then install PS CS. This assumes you’d run both PS7 and PSCS until you’re comfortable with PSCS. In each version of PS, point the preferences for the secondary plugins directory to this new folder. Open PS CS and see which plugins work. Those which do not may require a reinstall, but that should be a relatively small number.

Regards,

Daryl
H
Ho
Nov 2, 2003
In many cases you do not have to reinstall your plugins. Rather, you can move all 3rd party plugins to a new folder…

This moving of plugins can cause some of them not to work, requiring a reinstall. I think it would be easier to point PS8 (to hell with it, I am NOT going to call it CS) to the plugins folder in PS7. AS easy as this may be, I have no idea if it will actually work. I’ll let you know in a few days when I get PS8.
DP
Daryl Pritchard
Nov 2, 2003
Ho,

Using the Plug-ins folder of some other Photoshop version as a secondary plug-in path runs the risk of introducing startup problems for the current version. This is due to a conflict between native photoshop filters of the current and older version.

True enough, moving filters may require a reinstall, but it has been my experience that is not the case with a majority of plug-ins I’ve used.

Regards,

Daryl
RW
Russell_Williams
Nov 2, 2003
When switching between different versions of PS with plugins, I often find it useful to keep all my third party plugins installed within a subfolder of my plugins folder — plugins\third party\alien skin
plugins\third party\xenofex
etc.

or else put the "third party" folder somewhere else entirely.

That way I can point another version’s "additional plug-ins folder" at "third party" and not have any conflicts with the PS-provided plugins.
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
Silly question if you ask me.

Your first question should be; do I really need CS?
JD
Jeff_Darken
Nov 2, 2003
Hey Wings,

Post some Dutch to prove you are a Nederlander AUB

Jeff
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
Hey Wings,

Post some Dutch to prove you are a Nederlander AUB

Jeff

Why would I?
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Why not?

The original poster came to the right place to ask if we, the forum community, felt that the latest version of Photoshop was worth it. We’ve had questions like that before from version 6 users asking about version 7.

No reason to call someone silly because they seek out an opinion. We often field far sillier questions.
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
No reason to call someone silly because they seek out an opinion.

I never called him silly, I don’t know the person behind the question. I called the question "silly", but you decided to interpret in a different way.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Well, that was a unintelligent post – don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling you unintelligent, just the post.
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Nov 2, 2003
Tony, why first upgrade to XP? Are you on 98?
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Lawrence,

Yeah, still Win98se. There are a host of issues at present, but the biggest one is the idea that based on our systems’ age, it’s probably better to get new systems than to simply upgrade OS’s. That said, it’s more of a budgetary issue.

Right now there’s only ONE compelling reason for an XP upgrade, and that would be Photoshop CS. Considering the cost of everything involved in that migration, I’m more of a mind to continue with this OS and software set for the time being.

As an aside, we produce a product in PDF format. We would have to stay in Acrobat 4.05 since moving to version 6 would require that all of our customers have Win XP. Since we’ve decided to stay with 4.05 for the foreseeable future thereby preserving our opportunity with legacy OS’s, the advanced PDF features of Photoshop CS become moot.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Tony,

How did you come to the conclusion about Acrobat? Only the full version of Acrobat Professional requires Win2K or XP.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Bob,

That escaped me entirely. I only now checked the requirements for AR 6.0 and indeed, it supports legacy OS’s. Now that I’ve taken a closer look, even AA standard will run on Win98se, and since the Pro features are somewhat of a "yawn", I’m not convinced that Pro would be the way to go atm. Hmmm… the plot thickens.

Thanks for catching that man. I’m grateful.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Those features are not a yawn for anyone doing pre-press work. The separations preview is worth the price all by itself, but for office level features, standard is fine.

Not to worry, I’ve got your back. 🙂

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Well, I downloaded the comparison guide, and you’re right, they aren’t a "yawn". I do no pre-press work so that’s not interesting, but some of the other features are, and for 50 bucks more, I’d do well to consider it. But then we’re back to the cost of XP and migration and downtime. Our fastest computer is a 700 MHz Athalon, so, for the price, we’d be far better off doing it right and getting new systems than to play the "rubber bands and band aids" game. I owned a 1967 Chevy Nova – I know all about nickel and dime repairs <grin>.

Btw, both Standard and Pro come with Distiller, right?
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Btw, both Standard and Pro come with Distiller, right?

Yes. But when you print you print to Adobe PDF. A bit different but still not much of a learning curve even from Acrobat 4.

FWIW, I bought the upgrade to Pro when it came out from Amazon. They had it for the same $149.00 but the $50.00 rebate and free shipping made it a no brainer.

Bob
MA
Mark_Allen
Nov 3, 2003
Tony, you should take the plunge and explain to your customers. Things have to move on and since I upgraded to XP ( In anticipation of Adobe not supporting new products on 98SE) I haven’t regretted it and my workflow has increased. XP is just so stable although it takes a few weeks to get used to.

I’m sure the cost of things may not be as bad as you may think. What you get these days computerwise for your money is unbelievable.

Go on, make your day

Regards

Mark
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 3, 2003
Mark,

I appreciate the words of encouragement. I have a ThinkPad that has XP Pro on it, I know how well it performs (although I hate their new search engine!). The issue is, do we move five units up to XP or get new equipment? That financial balancing act isn’t easy, especially when our gain is not necessarily tangible – directly anyway. Can we get more customers? Can we process more images? It’s far less expensive to use an old machine and it’s processing power in the background – a modular automation approach.

What makes it easier is that Acrobat Reader does not require XP. That means we can produce PDF’s on either win98 or XP and not affect our client base. Still though, If we go XP, why? For Photoshop? Then we have to evaluate the relative benefit.

‘Sides, as many here know, I am fundamentally opposed to application activation – that doesn’t mean I won’t succumb over time, but if I’m not getting a slew of productivity benefits, and have to upgrade multiple systems or buy new systems, again, with a performance boost, but not necessarily a productivity gain, along with activation which I abhor, then it’s probably better, in the end, to wait for the early adopters to work out the issues.
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Nov 3, 2003
Tony, when I first started with PS I was on 98SE and PS 5. Not 5.5, 5. I knew nothing about PS. Within months of starting out, I switched to W2k, based on my experience with a firm for which I had a contract (in electronics), and not long afterwards, I switched to PS6. All this while I was getting up to speed. I can confidently say that the critical juncture was the switch to W2k. No more memory leaks. Stable system that let me concentrate on learning PS and not chasing computer gremlins (well almost not!).

So, switch away. You’ll be glad you did.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 3, 2003
Appreciate it Lawrence, I really do. It’s as I said, budget v. productivity – and I really want to see how activation plays out. Time will tell though.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 3, 2003
Well I really want photoshop cs. but the suite standard is really tempting me. I’m convinced that I’ll be able to upgrade to ps9 standalone should I not want to upgrade the suite, but there are a bunch of horror stories in the cs forum and frankly, it’s a little worrying. You guys know I’m not one to shy away from a computer problem, but neiter am I a glutton for punishment. It would really suck to go through some of the stuff that’s going on in there (and some smattering of threads in here).
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 3, 2003
Dave,

Hang on to your wallet. Christmas is coming. Wait, watch and see. I’m sure you’re right about the licensing thing (hint: I called my cousin today who’s a big wig attorney in Chicago and we conferenced with his Copyright attorney buddy – I’m not worried).

But the point is, me, personally, I’m not an early adopter. That’s one of the reasons I’m not on XP as we speak – of course in my case, I waited just a little too long <grin>. Let the early adopters take it through its paces. Or….

If you buy from CDW, there’s a 30-day no questions asked guarantee.

Me though? I’d wait. And you know how badly I want auto deskew. It would really help me (if it works). But still, sit back and let others test it out – I’d bet, with Australia being the Activation test bed, there were a lot of issues ferreted out then and they have a long list of dot release issues. They’re trying to do a whole lot in one fell swoop with the Creative Suite upgrade: installation control, activation, multiple product inclusion. All of this done within the same 18 month cycle that it took to release version 7.

I’m thinking that while activation may not be the biggest of the issues, it’s no small one. Don’t get me wrong, I know Adobe does a pretty fine job on their software, but to me, this is a BIG jump.
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Nov 3, 2003
Tony,
I just found this thread and read it with great interest. You and I share many feelings and opinions on this…as usual. I also hate activation and all that it implies, I also have an old machine running W98SE which I have decided NOT to upgrade to XP…my other (newer) machine is running XP Home Version. I will probably replace the old one next year, so it just doesn’t make sense to upgrade it, even though I don’t like the instability of W98. It’s a tool, it works, why mess with it?
I am not an "early adopter" either. I am still running Photoshop Elements 1.0! The upgrade to 2.0 is only 50 or 60 bucks. It isn’t the money. I am just comfortable with what I have, and it does everything I need or want. I also have Photoshop LE 5.0…which is really Photoshop 5.0. It came free with my film scanner. I use it rarely, only when I need Curves, which is not included in Elements.
Bert
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Nov 3, 2003
W2K is still available, at least I saw it in Staples the other day.

Yeah, and I am hanging loose also since reading the horror stories. I am with dave on this one.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Nov 3, 2003
Bert,

I can tell you Photoshop 5 LE is really not Photoshop 5. It is miles away.

Jeff
RH
r_harvey
Nov 3, 2003
For many, it’s enough; it depends on what you need. By today’s standards, my car is pretty primitive, but it does all I need–right now.
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Nov 3, 2003
can tell you Photoshop 5 LE is really not Photoshop 5. It is miles away.

Jeff,
Oh…somebody here in the forum told me that…I dunno…I only use it for Curves on the occasional "problem" picture anyway. Sorry, didn’t mean to mislead anybody.

Harv,
Yeah, it’s easy to get caught up in the "got to have the latest" hype. WIth cars OR computers OR cameras!
Bert

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections