I think what the poster means is, what happened to IR in CS3? Yes, it has been integrated (mostly) into Photoshop now. Heaven save us all!
Well he said, "I don’t see ImageReady any where on the site".
<shrug>
Otherwise it seems you have to buy FireWorks for some IR functions.
Thanks.
Erm, what exactly are IR functions in fireworks?
Sorry I never used IR. IRonically!
IRrespective of IRony.
Does that mean I have to IRon my own shirts?
Seriously, you should be able to do MOST of what you need IR for in Photoshop…and this shows the wisdom of keeping a previous version installed.
I can see that, I had used photoshop 7 with ImageReady for a while along with other versions other than CS3.
Yes, as what Ed Hannigan said was what exactly I meant.
John Joslin stated that there are IR functions in fireworks, so I asked what are they, I don’t see anything ironically about that? My knowledge in english isn’t even professional, so I failed to see your point, sorry!
Don’t worry, it was a pretty weak play on words.
Maybe some IR users will come up with more information.
Or you could try in the IR forum.
Try to open an animated GIF in PS CS3
deebs,
I believe it is done by Importing the file as a movie. Since I don’t have it I am not sure, but that is what I have heard.
that’s the workaround we’ve heard… open as as movie. (gif isn’t listed, so you need to specify *.* in the file name field) select the gif when i comes up in the open dialog.
You can’t make rollovers in CS3 like you could in IR as there is no Rollover/states pallet. Photoshop has incorporated about 80% of IR. I’m keeping my Photoshop CS2 handy as CS3 will not integrate with IR like it did with CS2.
only girls make their rollovers outside of Notepad! you’re a big girls blouse buko!!! 😛 🙂
Excuses, excuses. Just use any plain text editor.
Bob
But I don’t have notepad.
how difficult its it to write onmouseover and onmouseout? look! i did it again! and i wasn’t even trying!!! 😛
So imageready CS2 is easier…i want to install imageready CS2 only but the problem is I have to install photoshop cs2 too… is it possible to get around it? because i like photoshop cs3 better, itd be nice to have imageready cs2 without photoshop cs2
AFAIK, you can’t install IR without PS. You can still have both versions of PS installed so there’s really no downside here. You don’t have to use PS CS2.
Bob
Usually a good idea to hold on to the older version for a while.
If you have removed CS2 after installing CS3 and you want CS2 back You must uninstall CS3 to install CS2.
That’s a Mac only thing, I think.
Bob
lak96,
In the past, there were versions of Photoshop that could be run without having truly installed them, and PS6 is what comes to mind. If you simply copied the installation folder from one PC to another, you’d have some degree of functionality, but quite likely there would be common files missing, preferences, etc., that could leave you prone to encountering errors. Nonetheless, it could be done.
With CS2, I just duplicated much of the root installation folder for PS CS2 to a USB stick and exluded some of the obvious PS-specific content while still retaining plug-ins, help files, etc. in the event they were needed by ImageReady. Not surprisingly, when I launced IR standalone from the USB stick on a laptop with no Adobe software on it, an error was reported about missing personalization data, i.e. the serialization info that is added to the Windows Registry during installation. There is a chance activation data might also fold into the equation too, but since IR is not installed until after activation of PS CS2 if memory serves, that did leave me wondering to what degree activation or the lack thereof might affect IR being able to run in a standalone mode.
But, for the most part, I’d call it moot to even try. Since some data is obviously required in the Windows Registry, that complicates things a little, in that you’d have to export some info to import on another PC. That can be done of course, and you may well get IR CS2 running in a standalone fashion without PS CS2 being installed, but I suggest that you’d likely wind up keeping enough of the installation files that any space freed up by deleting the PS-specific content would be of little benefit at a time when drive space is plentiful and cheap.
Regards,
Daryl
Thank you, Daryl.
Hm, sounds difficult but it would surely take a while to get it running smoothly without any error
I designed complete, image-based dynamic HTML websites using Just Photoshop and Image Ready. Because Image Ready was not included with the latest version of Photoshop, the websites I created are no longer editable. S H * T … !!!
There was no warning or questionnaire or show of hands that I know of to weigh the value of the application. I loved it and used it often for quickly generating slick XHTML for a web page designed using Photoshop.
You Adobe people!
ImageReady has been on its last legs for years (almost from the start) the fact that Photoshop CS2 came with ImageReady and their were no updates made to it should have been an indication to you that ImageReady wasn’t long for this world. The purchase of Macromedia by Adobe and the fact that Fireworks is 1000 times the web graphics application that ImageReady only dreamed of being should have been another.
That said keep Photoshop CS2 and its ImageReady installed with CS3. No reason why you can’t do this. I however, would work on getting my sites away from ImageReady ASAP. As OSes change there is no guarantee you will be able to us Photoshop CS2 in the future.
Robert
Sorry but that page right there is perhaps one of the best reasons to kill ImageReady I have seen. Horrible choice of fonts, colors and the design is ho-hum. Definately not a modern web site.
Robert
Horrible choice of fonts, colors and the design is ho-hum. Definately not a modern web site.
sorry robert, but i disagree. i think it’s a fine site. (too many slices and the IR generated code is a bit too verbose for my taste though).
deisgn-wise, it’s simple and does what it’s supposed to. what more do you want? font choice and colors and site design are subjective to the taste of the designer and the site owner.
nothing you said in that post has any bearing on whether the site was done in imageready, golive, dreamweaver or notepad (my favorite).
I’ll echo Dave as I disagree too about the comments made regarding the appearance of Monte’s web page. It isn’t bland, the font variety somewhat livens it up, and yet overall the page is pretty simple.
The negative: Perhaps due to the verbose ImageReady code to do what seems relatively little, I do see that the image slices seems slow to load on my PC here at work, where I’d expect much quicker response.
And Monte, for what it’s worth as constructive criticsism…you might put an extra "s" into commis[s]ion. 🙂
Daryl
Pity it doesn’t validate, though…
Well I think that Monte should learn about font kerning, that is a major issue with legibility on his site.
…. yes, I misspelled "commission" and I am thoroughly embarrassed.
I am working on a new page and am trying to see if I can accomplish something similar using a combination of Photoshop, Fireworks and Dreamweaver.
My reasons for creating an image-based, brochure style website is the fact that no browser can manipulate it to look any way other than the way it was designed. I don’t like HTML text because any browser can jack with it and blow-up a tight design. Image text has the look of Flash and can become a template for creating a Flash site – should I desire to.
Years ago, I designed this website the same way: <
http://www.tomjenkins.net/> — it doesn’t suck — don’t let the way it loads fool you into thinking the website loads slowly.
…. oh Robert, let’s see something you’ve done – okay? — LenHewitt, what doesn’t validate?
ID. Awe, I know a lot about font kerning. It’s when milk goes sour before you can finish your cereal.
My point about Image ready is, I liked it – I used it – I miss it – it was C O O L !!!
Monte,
I wondered the same about Len’s comment, as I’ve never validated anything on my non-professional, personal website. But, a quick search of HTML validators turned up several links, one being <
http://validator.w3.org>, which revealed 5 errors with your site, most being related to some frame elements. Overall, this seems pretty minor to me, given all the ImageReady-generated content. I hate to imagine how many errors I may find with my own site, where much was built using FrontPage.
Daryl
Monte: It appears your site’s type has been curdled.
While it may take more time to understand and use CSS, if it is written properly it cannot be ‘jacked’ unless someone has an accessibility issue which is the reason for W3 validation.
Seinfeld.
I take Paypal.
Bob
Daryl, I write the Frameset code and much of the CSS by hand using Notepad and use either GoLive or Dreamweaver to check the syntax for errors, rewrite the code (so it looks pretty) There are no errors – only stuff challenging to the validator. Phooey on the validator. I say, "I am the master of my domain" ($10.00 to the 1st person to tell me what TV show that quote came from).
I’m not sure to what standard the validation process is trying to verify. I created site based on WC3’s: xhtml1-frameset.dtd — anything less, just won’t do.
I’m more worried about coding errors than meeting expectations. Anyway, you people sure get distracted with details.
want to know who 86’ed Image Ready? It was a good little addition to Photoshop and I wish Adobe would have continued it. Fireworks still smells too much like Macromedia – very unintuitive.
Okay kids – look at this: <
http://www.montemedia.net/Special/why_dont_you.wmv>
…. atta boy Robert – you win the 10 bux!
Nickels and dimes work for you? How about $10.00 worth of graphic design – or a copy of my new book, "How To Win at Parcheesi"?
ID. AWE, my mom said the W3 is a conspiracy. She said it – not me.
Monte,
Yeah, I kinda’ wondered about the validator myself. I only got into the details to explore what the other comments here were saying. I agree with ya’ regarding coding errors and meeting expectations. 🙂
Daryl
I don’t validate anything i do.
…. this string has a nice tone to it. So, nobody commented on my music video – which is okay – we’re here to speculate why Image Ready was dumped and replaced with …. nothing really.
You know, it’s okay. A couple of hours with Fireworks and I accidently dropped my PC out a 3rd floor window – accidently, mind you.
Anybody here own a 2004, white, 3 series BMW? Your alarm is going off and there is little scratch on the trunk – about the size and shape of a 22" Samsung monitor.
dave milbut said, "I don’t validate anything i do." And neither do I. As long as the code is in order, away we go.
bearing in mind that all my stuff is guaranteed to run 9only on ie. so that makes my life a bit easier… (intranet only)
Well Monte, as you are bothered about the code, maybe you would like to add the missing <head> element to your tomjenkins.net site…
The point about validation is it DOES ensure the coding is correct for the DTD specified.
For example, on your own site you are using ‘&’ where you actually should be using the HTML ENTITY ‘&’ for the coding to be correct.
LenHewitt, I do believe you are gunnin’ for me.
The missing "
looks like the rest of my original message was obliterated — anyway, thank you LenHewitt for pointing out a couple of oversights on my part — actually, the opening
looks like the rest of my original message was obliterated — anyway, thank you LenHewitt for pointing out a couple of oversights on my part — actually, the opening "head" tag was attending the funeral of the
tag and has already returned having missed the wake — and not using the HTML entity for an "&" inside a META tag is acceptable, under those circumstances.
looks like the rest of my original message was obliterated — anyway, thank you LenHewitt for pointing out a couple of oversights on my part — actually, the opening "head" tag was attending the funeral of the "p" tag and has already returned having missed the wake — and not using the HTML entity for an "&" inside a META tag is acceptable, under those circumstances.
