IS CS v. 8.0?

CS is 8

I wonder if we’ll all come to refer to Photoshop CS as "PSCS"…it feels odd to stick yet a 4th letter on there…maybe it will just be "PSC"? Time will tell.

Daryl,

Just say ‘Pixie’ (Dixie is, obviously, InDesign CS)

I wonder who Tom is…

The real questions is if they’ll called the next version CS 2, or CS 2005. Always thought naming a product by its year of release is really dumb – but I guess it’s worked for the auto industry.
-SL

wrote in message

I wonder if we’ll all come to refer to Photoshop CS as "PSCS"…it feels

odd to stick yet a 4th letter on there…maybe it will just be "PSC"? Time will tell.

I plan on calling them by name and version number as usualy.

AI 11 PS8 etc.

Here’s my naming structure…

InDesign = Sally
Illustrator = Clarence
Photoshop = Bob

Future versions will be the same name followed by I, II, III.

GoLive = Festus
LiveMotion = Sir Not-appearing-in-this-feature

Always thought naming a product by its year of release is really dumb – but I guess it’s worked for the auto industry.

I thought it was smart of MS to do it to Windows, becuase Windows was on version 4 (when it went to 95) and the MacOS was on version 7 (or 9? I can’t remember).

I think Adobe and Macromedia are doing this in order to shift user’s perceptions about what is a dot release and what’s a full version upgrade. A lot of users make comments about products like "this should have been 6.5, not 7.0", and really when they say that they’re falling victim to marketing, becuase it’s really about the price of the upgrade, and not what version number is slapped on it.

But I guess when a product gets a new name like this, more people buy it. I’ve heard that photoshop 5.5 was a bad marketing choice becuase perceptually people didn’t want to pay for something that wasn’t a whole new version.

Okay, I’m done rambling.

~Hanford

The tagging it to a year idea failed, so MS went for the abstract. Their primary purpose for this was so that they could sign-up corporations to perpetual contracts, promising all updates, but since the version is vague at best, they really didn’t have to ship anything new. That’s the problem MS is having now with large companies, who paid hundreds per seat, but won’t see Longhorn for another year and a half–meanwhile they’ve paid for Windows XP about three times over.

"I thought it was smart of MS to do it to Windows,"

Yeah, wasnt win2000 a year late?

And while Terri Pettet says it’s dumb to support a 5-year old operating system (Windows 98), Windows XP will be around at least that long.

Is Photoshop Bob anything like Microsoft Bob?

I think it is funny that they companies couldn’t see this coming. Lets face it in the area of OS updates Microsoft takes at least 3 years or more between releases. To think that all of sudden Microsoft was going to start cranking them out yearly just because companies were…blinded enough to think Microsoft would is laughable.

But, then Microsoft got what the wanted and that was a lot of money for next to nothing. You can’t tell me that isn’t greed.

Robert