Any know if Adobe Photoshop 5.0 will work under WN2000? I've spent hours at the Adobe site and in their forums and no answers yet.
I'm thinking of buying WN2000 but might not if Photoshop won't work under it. Buying ver. 6.0 is out of the question.
------------------
P3 450@600Mhz
128MB gen. PC100 running at 133
full size EFA brand ATX motherboard
HP 9110 CD-RW
cheap SIS 6326 and cheap Trident
video cards with dual monitors.
Zoom 2919L modem
WN 98SE
Abit KT7 RAID and 1Ghz Duron on way
Originally posted by JasonWW: Any know if Adobe Photoshop 5.0 will work under WN2000? I've spent hours at the Adobe site and in their forums and no answers yet.
I'm thinking of buying WN2000 but might not if Photoshop won't work under it. Buying ver. 6.0 is out of the question.
whys buying v6.0 outta the question? is there that much of a price difference? anyway, if u buy v5.0 and it doesnt work, im sure u can dl the upgrade to v5.5 at least, and i know that works cuz i got it on my win2k machine.
------------------
"Hell is oneself, hell is alone, the other figures in it merely projections. There is nothing to escape from and nothing to escape to. One is always alone." -- T.S. Eliot
AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+
Asus A8N-SLI Premium
2GB OCZ Platinum EL PC3200
WD 200GB SE 7200/8MB
BFG GeForce 7800 GTX OC 256mb
BFG GeForce 7800 GTX OC 256mb
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Dell 2005FPW Monitor
Klipsch ProMedia GMX 5.1 system
Windows XP Professional SP2
I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure Adobe Photoshop has *always* been made for Win9X/WinNT systems. Hell, Photoshop 3.0 should work under Win2k. I'll give you a 100% unconditional guarantee that Photoshop 5.0 will work perfectly in Win2k. Now tell me where else can ya get that!? Heheheh. In all seriousness though, it does work. I've run it myself. 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0. Those are the versions I've run under Win2k.
------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P3-550e@733Mhz
256MB PC-133 CL3 RAM
Elsa Gladiac GeForce2 GTS
40+ Gig's of combined HD
CD-RW 8/4/32X
DVD w/ Hollywood RealMagic DVD Decoder
19" MAG DJ800 monitor
Tornado 1000 case
**Win2000 Professional**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for the help. I probably wasn't clear earlier, you see I already have Photoshop 5.0. For quite some time now.
------------------
P3 450@600Mhz
128MB gen. PC100 running at 133
full size EFA brand ATX motherboard
HP 9110 CD-RW
cheap SIS 6326 and cheap Trident
video cards with dual monitors.
Zoom 2919L modem
WN 98SE
Abit KT7 RAID and 1Ghz Duron on way
Yeah that's absolutely true. But what I'm saying is, as long as Photoshop has been around in Windows, it's been made for the NT kernal as well. Once upon a time MAC's were far better developmental tools for graphics and such, but those days are long gone.
I would disagree. Macs are still the graphics champs.
Quick examples:
My friend who is an art major: Mac user.
The Kinko's down the street: Macs users.
If I had enough money: Mac user [OS X, graphics only].
-bZj
------------------ .sig: coming soon to a post near you!
People still use MAC's for graphics work for the very same reason people use Netscape. Either they *think* their old stand-by is the best available, or their too reluctant to be taught new tricks (old dogs). I have a friend who's a graphic design major at Rhode Island School of Design, and he's always sworn by the PC. I'd personally love to see what people have in defense for MacOS these days, I mean really...what advantage does it offer you that the PC's cannot?
And don't say stability...Win9X given is a joke, but Win2000 brings hardcore stability, and is a *great* developer's OS, no doubt about it.
Originally posted by JasonWW: Any know if Adobe Photoshop 5.0 will work under WN2000? I've spent hours at the Adobe site and in their forums and no answers yet.
I'm thinking of buying WN2000 but might not if Photoshop won't work under it. Buying ver. 6.0 is out of the question.
I'll eat my monitor if it doesn't work.
------------------
Now listening to:
Laurent Garnier - Unreasonable Behaviour
[This message has been edited by kid A (edited November 17, 2000).]
Now listening to various rock and metal 143rd member to join Sharkyforums.
Originally posted by Grizzly: People still use MAC's for graphics work for the very same reason people use Netscape. Either they *think* their old stand-by is the best available, or their too reluctant to be taught new tricks (old dogs). I have a friend who's a graphic design major at Rhode Island School of Design, and he's always sworn by the PC. I'd personally love to see what people have in defense for MacOS these days, I mean really...what advantage does it offer you that the PC's cannot?
And don't say stability...Win9X given is a joke, but Win2000 brings hardcore stability, and is a *great* developer's OS, no doubt about it.
That's funny. Well, everyone has their beliefs. This isn't sarcasm.
Still, I would use a Mac for graphics b/c all the programs are native to it. Actually, if I was oding hard core graphics, *nix would be the way to go [most hard core 3D movei animation is done in *nix systems]. To each their own I guess.
-bZj
------------------ .sig: coming soon to a post near you!
You're certainly right, to each their own . But I fail to understand why a program being "native" (initially created for) to MacOS having anything to do with it? It in no way means that the PC version would perform worse, or be less reliable. Fact of the matter is, they both get the job done. It's just most people who use computers in any serious fashion wouldn't want the restrictions a Mac gives you.
It all depends on what you use your computer for. The Mac is, almost by definition, made for graphics and video editing. The iMacs come with everything you need for making movies and crap. It comes down to this: artists are usually techinically inferior, and need the simpler MacOS, or they would hurt themselves and rob us all of their wonderful work, so they go with Macs. That being said, I use a PC for all my art.
I have always felt that anything 'ported' over to another OS would be behind, because someone is trying make new architecture do the same stuff that the old architecture would. Granted, this may actually yeild better results, but that is rare.
-bZj
------------------ .sig: coming soon to a post near you!
I think Adobe has proved this theory wrong. There's zero differences between platforms in Adobe's case.
You're right about the technically inferior thing when it comes to artists, lol, I know, I used to be one! I debated going to art school and all, and I'm *really* glad I decided against that one. So in that respect, I can see why Mac's can be a good thing for artists aren't too computer savvy. But that doesn't mean that Mac's are therefore better for graphics design, all it means is that they're better for people ignorant to the tech world.
Photoshop 5 runs on Win2k--I've done it for months. As far as a brief comment on MACs, I was a MAC zealot and saw the light in 1992 when I realized the futility! I finally got sick of high prices and no software and now I can whine about windows like all my friends!
------------------
I only download mp3s to try before I buy, HAHA
Adobe Photoshop 5.0 and WN2000?
Reply With Quote
. But I fail to understand why a program being "native" (initially created for) to MacOS having anything to do with it? It in no way means that the PC version would perform worse, or be less reliable. Fact of the matter is, they both get the job done. It's just most people who use computers in any serious fashion wouldn't want the restrictions a Mac gives you.
Bookmarks