[OM_user]

Yeah, I got bit by that same stupid thing and missed out on the beginning of the webcast showing Photoshop and some of Illustrator, but caught the rest. Fortunately, I didn't wait as long as you did to take a trip to their homepage and found the new "correct" link.
But this was a seriously bone-headed move on Adobe's part. Why couldn't they just update the original page with a new link to the correct stream page?
FWIW, you didn't miss much though. It was more marketing speak than actual demo of the new products, and they had a MASSIVE technical problem halfway through with the screens and video feed that caused them to take something like a 20 minute "break" (complete with cheesy music) while they figured out what the hell was going on. The presenters were put in a rather awkward position of trying to answer questions from the audience that they were woefully equipped to answer.

[jtmacb]

Why must we assume that GoLive is dead? I know the concensus opinion is that it's a gonner after version 9 comes out. But maybe Adobe simply has the GoLive team on a different schedule and it did not work with with the release of the other CS3 products. If GoLive 9 will work as well with the rest of the CS3 family of products as DW then why wouldn't I choose to stay with GoLive. Microsoft has always had its two Office suites come out at different times, one leapfrogging over the other. While the analogy is not exactly the same I don't feel that it's written in stone that Adobe is going to abandon all of the GoLive users who bought it for its better user interface and feature set. Why make your current customers unhappy. If a lot of the code is the same between the two programs it can't be all that difficult to support one more program that people obviously like to use. Just look at their long list of products. They're not hurting for products to sell that's for sure. Keep GoLive will keep tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of GoLive customers happy. Isn't that worth something to Adobe?

[lwdesign]

Quote:

---

Why must we assume that GoLive is dead? I know the concensus opinion is that it's a gonner after version 9 comes out. But maybe Adobe simply has the GoLive team on a different schedule and it did not work with with the release of the other CS3 products. If GoLive 9 will work as well with the rest of the CS3 family of products as DW then why wouldn't I choose to stay with GoLive. Microsoft has always had its two Office suites come out at different times, one leapfrogging over the other. While the analogy is not exactly the same I don't feel that it's written in stone that Adobe is going to abandon all of the GoLive users who bought it for its better user interface and feature set. Why make your current customers unhappy. If a lot of the code is the same between the two programs it can't be all that difficult to support one more program that people obviously like to use. Just look at their long list of products. They're not hurting for products to sell that's for sure. Keep GoLive will keep tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of GoLive customers happy. Isn't that worth something to Adobe?

---

I'm happy that there will indeed be a GoLive 9 coming out sometime in Spring 2007. What doesn't please me is that Adobe is forcing me to buy Dreamweaver with my CS3 upgrade for $599, and then is happy to charge me an additional $169 for my GoLive upgrade. Why not give users the choice of having CS3 with a choice of Dreamweaver OR GoLive? What a concept! It would please both types of users. Instead, Adobe has prioritized DW over GoLive by placing it in the CS3 bundle.
This makes me very upset as a long time GoLive user, to be told my software just isn't as important as the new kid on the block, Dreamweaver. DW has an abysmal interface that is not Adobe-like at all. Tools are scattered all over the place. I'm sure with training I could get used to it, but it still rankles to be relegated to a lesser important position as a GL user.
Again, Adobe, are you listening? Please offer us loyal users a choice of the web app in CS3.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

now it's time for Apple to roll out the octo Macs so I can stop lusting for one!! Srsly, my aged G4 Sawtooth was replaced with a Core 2 Duo Wintel box (mostly because Second Life and WoW ran, er, crawled unbearably). A octo Mac is just what I needed to justify shelling out that much money again!

---

If you haven't tried a Mac Pro, then you should. It's plenty fast. While 8 processors sounds like it's much better than 4 processors, there are very few instances where you would ever know the difference. On a server, it makes sense as a server is designed to handle many requests in parallel and can make efficient use of multiple processors. With applications, few make good use of multiple processors and the ones that do, typically have limited efficiency. That level of efficiency drops as you add more processors. Yes, some of your filters would be faster on an 8 processor Mac, but my guess is that you'd be surprised at how little of an overall improvement you'd actually see.
Steve

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

I'm happy that there will indeed be a GoLive 9 coming out sometime in Spring 2007. What doesn't please me is that Adobe is forcing me to buy Dreamweaver with my CS3 upgrade for $599, and then is happy to charge me an additional $169 for my GoLive upgrade. Why not give users the choice of having CS3 with a choice of Dreamweaver OR GoLive? What a concept! It would please both types of users. Instead, Adobe has prioritized DW over GoLive by placing it in the CS3 bundle.

---

I understand where you're coming from as a GoLive user. But really, from a practical perspective, does your suggestion really make sense? GoLive and Dreamweaver have long been competing products. GoLive has been a little better from the designer's point of view, but Dreamweaver has been better from the professional/enterprise view. Adobe went with Dreamweaver as it was apparently the market leader. Anyway, what is Adobe supposed to do, have two creative suite bundles? For starters, their latest product announcements are already a mess in terms of confusion, why add to that confusion?
In terms of products, Adobe needed to pick one and move on. That's what it did. If it picked GoLive, there would be just as many people complaining about missing Dreamweaver, actually, there would be more. Adobe knows most people will buy the suite of applications rather than pick and choose. The incentive is for you to migrate to Dreamweaver. It's nice of Adobe to make another GoLive, but Adobe is clearly letting it's customers know that Dreamweaver is the future. You either have to accept that now and migrate to Dreamweaver, or wait until the next version of GoLive eventually falls behind as it falls out of support. With Adobe coming out with another GoLive, they are giving you several years to make that transition if you choose. The preferred route is to have users switch to Dreamweaver now though.
If you were running Adobe and not just a GoLive user, how would you do things different and what would be your justifications? You mentioned that you'd have two suites, one with GoLive and the other with Dreamweaver. Is that correct? Given Adobe's goal to migrate the user base to Dreamweaver, how would you defend this decision?
Steve

[grbear]

Quote:

---

If you haven't tried a Mac Pro, then you should. It's plenty fast.
Steve

---

True true.. but just knowing there's new Mac pro's waiting in the wings for release within the next month, it would be silly for me to drop that kinda cash atm.
I'm also hoping that Apple will get their act together and update the video card selection because frankly, their current offerings are a serious downgrade from my current nVidia 7900GS.

[Grapho]

It boils down to user base and profitability. Adobe is not here to make anybody happy, they are here to make money. If GoLive has enough users, they will certainly make money from it and you can rest assured that you will get future development on it. But it the user base is dwindling, then they will probably kill it.

[spiderbat]

The rational part of my mind keeps telling me that Adobe has its good reasons to sell its application suite at different levels of price/performance. Nevertheless, my nose, already sensitized by Adobe's decision to embrace sw activation, can't help feeling an unpleasant windoze-sque smell.. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[KarenEliot]

I know people always complain about this, but take a look at the US/UK price differences for Adobe CS3...
Two examples...
Design Premium:
Buying from the UK is 1655.68 (in US$ 3252.25)
Buying from USA is US$ 1799.00 (in UK 915.85)
Design Premium upgrade from CS1:
Buying from the UK is UK 703.82 (in US$ 1382.51)
Buying from USA is US$ 599.00 (in UK 304.94)
That kind of difference surely does not account for the usual excuses, like VAT. The UK is paying towards double what our American friends are paying. For an upgrade it is over double.
That said, I'm rubbish at maths, so I may have got my sums wrong... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[stephenrea]

Quote:

---

According to the website, you can upgrade from as far back as Photoshop 7. What is a bit of a short, sharp shock is that doing so has gone up a ton. Making such an upgrade was $549 when going to CS2, with CS3 it's $899.

---

Mostly because the Standard suite as we knew it is gone.
The old Premium suite is the new Standard suite at the Premium price.
The previous upgrade from Photoshop to CS2 Premium was $750, so it has gone up a lot too.
The upgrade price from CS2 Premium to CS3 Standard is $240. but only from CS2.3 Earlier suites are $400. Several customers only have 2.0. Didn't bother to update the 2.3, whose only difference was Acrobat 8. Most of my customers don't use any web stuff and don't need DW or GL. They bought the Premium suite to get Acrobat, which now comes in the Standard suite.