Microsoft Unveils New Design Studio 316
shibashaba writes "NewsFactor is reporting that Microsoft has just released a new design studio consisting of the Acrylic Graphic Design, Sparkle Interactive Design and Quartz Web Designer Software. Supposedly the goal is not to compete head to head with the proposed Adobe/Macromedia merger but to turn developers into designers. According to Jupiter Research, The days when a designer worked alone have been traded in for an interactive world in which designers often work hand-in-hand with developers. "Microsoft is trying to address what it believes is a legitimate and longstanding problem in the design market."
Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't be two more opposed jobs in a game shop than designers and developpers.
Heck, I've been doing tech support for a design shop with both graphic and industrial designers, and those people have totally no clue in what makes a computer tick.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it's more difficult to manage a team as opposed to a few key developers, but consider the fact that a developer is still only one person. If he has to handle every phase of the implementation by himself, he's never going to get the project done. The name of the game is divide and conquer. What better way than to divide along the lines of competence?
I honestly don't understand this industry practice of thinking management is irrelevent just because we have technology. A well managed project will keep the team members close together and the project on schedule. A poorly managed project will fall apart as team members throw blame at each other because no one knows what to do, or everyone is vieing for a leadership position.
Want your project to succeed? Manage it, and manage it well.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to understand why people think that. It's because most people's experience with management is highly conducive to that belief.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Informative)
from the summary: "Microsoft is trying to address what it believes is a legitimate and longstanding problem in the design market."
the legitimate and longstanding problem in the design market is that so many developers think their designers. And so many people who have absolutely no concept of good design think their designers.
I've seen this first hand, far too often. Working in the digital prepress field, the ratio of jobs coming in from design firms/ professional designers compared to Janine w
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, as a developer who is often forced into a designer role as well, I look forward to enhaced toolsets. Maybe not from MS, but you can bet that the competitors (and quasi non-competitors like OSS) will release newer / updated tools to provide similar or even better functionality down the road. Not to nit-pick, but it really doesn't matter for a designer to understand the inner tickings of a computer (and to some extent a developer, though they will be much better off if they do). Just like you probably don't have nearly the trained eye nor layout skills that the designers do for their artwork. Strengths and Toolsets. This is what MS is trying to bridge, or in market-speak - creating "synergies"!!!
(oh boy I have a bright future in marketing I am afraid...)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
This all means that Microsoft can put together a case study of companies that manage to get lucky and make this all work then represent that as the norm. They then put together a survey that says that other implementations have a higher TCO (again, their term, not mine) due largely to higher salaries. Then the real motivation is made clear: They don't care about the quality of software that is developed, they care that managers see a better value in paying them instead of paying higher wages for more skilled employees.
Making things easier for the developer to become the designer is the next logical step. This means you buy more of their software with the thinking that you don't have to hire another skilled worker.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2)
That still doesn't change the goals of those products, that is to typically be used to implement half-ass solutions. Obviously nothing being said here is any less arguable than for someone to say that these r
One of the worst products I ever worked on... (Score:5, Informative)
It was a web-based UI that was "designed" by someone using Visual BASIC as their design tool, and then we had the "opportunity" to try and build the damn thing in Java in a browser-portable way.
I'd rather walk on broken glass than work with that person again.
The UI we ended up with bore no relationship to the underlying data organization, and was basically all over the map when it came to unrelated items glommed together. Gee, it was pretty, but it was also totally unusable.
I'd have to disagree with you - it *completely* matters for a designer to understand what they are designing for; if they don't, the result is going to suck, and suck hard.
-- Terry
Third normal form? (Score:2)
Re:Third normal form? (Score:2)
I've read up on 3NF and I STILL don't know what the heck it is! http://databases.about.com/od/administration/l/bl
Re:Third normal form? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One of the worst products I ever worked on... (Score:4, Insightful)
For data-collection apps, perhaps. But chances are these people will have had some training in usability and so forth, and instead of making some mockup in photoshop then relying on developers "translating" it, the idea of these tools are that the designer can just "draw" the interface and have it function, then the developers can just tie into it.
The idea being that developers find it hard to communicate what designers can and cannot do, and the difficulty of their work — now they don't have to. The prototype "design" is also the finished front-end.
This does not, to the best of my knowledge, cover data-collection, web-based front-ends. That's not the same. But as for an interface for a desktop app, it makes a lot of sense, particularly when things are getting to the level where designers have a lot of options as far as the design goes.
So, essentially, what it does is turn designers into proper designers, by giving them a tool that works exactly (give or take) like a design tool, but outputs sensible code, instead of the developer having to act as a proxy.
Don't forget the new field of interactive design (Score:4, Interesting)
By "interactive designers" I'm not referring to developers who are self-taught photoshop gurus, or designers who know how to alter a script. I'm talking about professionally trained graphic designers who have been schooled in human behavior (psychology / sociology) and software development.
I was totally blown away by the Sparkle demo that was posted to Slashdot last week. Nevertheless, Sparkle is just a tool. It's not going to teach developers the idiosyncrasies of visual communication, and it's not going to teach designer's programing logic. It'll set some boundaries and drastically speed up prototyping.
However, once companies start utilizing tools likes Sparkle, AND start hiring legitimate "interactive designers"... we should start to see some see some really cool shit. "Design" is not something that should be separate from development. Designers and developers / engineers need to be on a design team from stage one.
It's common practice to a) engineer and or conceptualize functionality before considering interactivity and ascetics, and or b) design pretty concepts that are impractical to develop. Both of these approaches don't make any sense.
If you ask me, a software development "dream team" would be composed of adept developers with some schooling in industrial design, and adept graphic designers with schooling in human behavior and computer science. When they'd start a new project, they would enter ideation, design, and development stages together... and they'd have some tools like Sparkle readily available. Because, well, Flash and Photoshop interactivity prototyping is a soul sucking vortex that needs to die. Seriously.
Yet, this won't start to happen until interdisciplinary education becomes common place.
Re:Don't forget the new field of interactive desig (Score:3, Insightful)
People have been saying that for ever. Instead of really cool shit, we seem to perpetually just get the regular kind of shit.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, there are better designers and developers than I, as I'm unable to specialise in either, but not many designer/developer teams can create the kind of responsive, intuitive and attractive user experiences that I do. Something goes missing when you start having to communicate your ideas to someone who doesn't understand both sides.
I will agree that people like me are rare however.. Most designers look at me strangely when I start talking about code, and most developers have absolutely no sense of aesthetics or design.
Re:Yeah, wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You're what would be called a "technical artist" in the game development world. They're sometimes extremely useful for helping to glue parts of a project together. It can be a lonely position that places you between two worlds, but not fully in either of them. Loathed by programmers for having enough knowledge to damage the codebase, loathed by artists because you can patiently and accurately explain why using a 8192x8192 32-bit uncompressed texture for the app's splash-screen logo is a bad idea.
I've also never worked on a project that had more than one technical artist - I'm starting to believe that if you manage to get two technical artists in the same room (let alone working on the same project), they'll react and cause an explosion which destroys the universe.
most developers have absolutely no sense of aesthetics or design.
Oddly enough, user interface design was part of my Comp. Sci. degree - there's a whole subsection of Computer Science dedicated to man/machine interfaces. Most programmers (well, a few anyway) would agree that the most important part of a program as far as the user/client is concerned - is how the program interacts with the user.
The best programmers (or maybe just the ones who actually have a computer science degree) understand this. They may not be able to design an icon or choose a color scheme (which is where you should come in), but if pushed they should be able to make a basic UI design that is usable, neat and efficient. Neat and uncluttered UI design tends to help produce clean code anyway...
I dunno (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)
I develop sometimes, and sometimes I have to be the UI designer too.
I can really appreciate and "see" a good design. I love the Mac for instance. I try really hard to make my UIs simple and clean and intuitive. But it takes a lot of effort. I'm really not good at it. I just tweak and hammer and edit all day until it looks like something a good design team made (like 37signals [37signals.com], I copy their UIs all the time). I go by trial and error, not by any deep understanding of what I'm doing.
What I need is t
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft perceived a problem and an opportunity. "And you can't truly say that Outlook is an e-mail program. They actually redefined the market."
Lotus Notes?
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are right. After all, they managed to integrate a calendar and address book into an email application. It's no longer just email, it's email and calendaring! See the difference? (No, I don't either.)
Microsoft Exchange/Outlook is useful only because it centralizes more than just the email. Scheduling and the ability to look up people in your company are both important features. The thing I don't understand is, where the heck is the competition? I mean, you're looking at a few special folders that Outlook interprets as "Calendar" and "Address Book" in an IMAP-type interface. Why can't anyone else do this? Always kind of boggled my mind.
And no, Lotus Notes doesn't count. LN isn't email, it's an automatic, self-corrupting database that happens to support email. A bit like EMACS is a complete LISP environment that happens to support text editing.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Funny, a lot of people I work with see the difference. I wonder if general ignorance about the usefulness of Outlook is why it's been so hard to find an OSS alternative.
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It's not really "email redefined", it's "email with calendaring bundled".
2. It's so stupidly simple, I don't understand why no one at least copies it. Hell, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with something with more powerful features. (e.g. Better email searching, searchable address book, labels vs. folders, smart calendar that can helpfully generate reports to help you plan your day, etc.)
It just amazes me that Microsoft has managed to get a strangehold on the email market with a fairly straight-forward produce, and the only industry response is a new version of Lotus Notes. Am I missing something here?
Where is the competition? (Score:2)
To me, it seems as though open source developers with the expertise to create such a thing would be interested in a scheduling environment that they can share with their family and friends.
I guess life just isn't that complicated for most people.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Mozilla have a calandar since a very long time. You can add it to either the suite or Thunderbird (as an extension) or even in Firefox. However, it looks just like your normal app with a link that launch a calendar app. They are developing a stand-alone version (Sunbird) and an actual mer
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, Photoshop is also stupidly simple, right? It's amazing no one has managed to clone it successfully.
And Quark/PageMaker/InDesign? Stupidly simple!
CorelDraw? Illustrator? *cue Howard Dean scream* STUPIDLY SIMPLE!!!
Seriously, you oughta try and look at things from another angle. Sometimes it helps.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
(Caveat: its IMAP functionality sucks.)
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
In theory, these are huge things and can be really important to a company, especially one that relies on communication. You can check someone's schedule, send an e-mail to make an appointment (which is done virtually automaticaly, the recipient gets a message and can click a button to schedule you for your requested time, or re
Re:Uh... (Score:3)
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Why does this stuff to be "centralized" more than just being on the same computer?
Scheduling and the ability to look up people in your company are both important features.
Wow, amazing, what will those guys up in Redmond reinvent next?
The thing I don't understand is, where the heck is the competition?
Sadly, there are plenty of applications that imitate Outlook and Exchange; just have a look around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Re:Uh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
My new plan:
1. Create a crappy-looking web application.
2. Run it through Microsoft's new design software.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
While both skills are creative endeavors, they are truly different disciplines. There's only a handful of developers that I've worked with that have truly been able to bridge both talents successfully.
Seriously -- you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Trying to turn logical artists into visual artists is likely to produce just as many terrible looking applications -- they'll just be crappy in a 3-D, aqua-ripoff sort of way.
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
I think it's like video cards -- visual thinkers take too much cooling to keep programming skills in the same cranium. Let me know if you hear of any decent case mods, though -- I'd like to focus on pretty software next.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
It comes down to structure. Programming is all about elegence in structure. The more structured your code is, the better it is. The more you look for elegent solutions rather than sloppy hacks, the nicer your code looks. (And gets Ooos and Ahhs of approval from your cow-orkers.)
The visual arts have a lot to do with blasting emotion onto the canvas in a fluid way. Programmers don't do "fluid", they do structure. Thus a programmer will tend to give you something utterly sterile like Motif or Java Look and Feel. The only one who will appreciate it is a programmer. Yet an artist will create something like Quartz with rounded edges, flowing colors, and other aestehtics designed to communicate something on a more primal level.
Now when you get to music, structure again begins to rule. There are very specific models for producing music, and many a structured thinker tends to find a way to unconciously communicate through that structure. If you fail to maintain certain structures, it will no longer sound like music. Rather, it will sound like a bad jam session done in somebody's garage.
While sterotypes are always dangerous, I think you'll find that the stronger artists have a talent or strong appreciation for poetry. Poetry may offer them an outlet to express their emotions with only a minimum of structure standing in their way. And the best part about poetic structure is that new structures can be formed based on what sounds good to the ear. You aren't constrained to a few choices in meter, note length, or any other structures imposed on music. It's all optional.
That's my opinion, anyway.
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, which is why you have crazed hooligans like Ansel Adams, who were all about blasting emotions onto negatives, and had no interest in structure [photo-seminars.com].
(That is to say: I find your hypothesis wanting.
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
And if there's anything the world needed, its more programmer art.
talk like a ninja day! (Score:3, Informative)
OMG QUARTZ!!!! Do your stuff Apple lawsuit ninjas!
*cue myriad legions of ninjas with briefcases and Apple logos on their masks vaulting over the top of Microsoft headquarters and hacking away at the unsuspecting trademark*
Re:talk like a ninja day! (Score:2)
Wha? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wha? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft Hubris (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Hubris (Score:3, Funny)
That's actually just a rip-off of Apple Hubris.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
History Repeats itself (Score:2)
oooh... mmmmeeemmorriiiesss (Score:2)
Re:oooh... mmmmeeemmorriiiesss (Score:2)
Riiiiiiight... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Microsoft link (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
Microsofts Borg Design Goal... (Score:3, Funny)
What is that problem again? That Borg Cubes and Spheres aren't sexy enough for you?
Yesh (Score:2, Funny)
Designers work with dorks, who work with morons, sometimes with halfwits and often under the direction of the clueless.
Good plan, Microsoft, I see you have a solution that fits everyone, once again.
I Doubt Microsoft's Commitment to Sparkle Motion (Score:3, Funny)
And for the confused, read this [locusmag.com].
Re:I Doubt Microsoft's Commitment to Sparkle Motio (Score:2)
I really need to stop rewatching that film
Developers Developers Developers are not Designers (Score:2, Insightful)
One is left brain. One is right brain.
Asking a coder to do artwork is silly.
The Adobe and Macromedia people understand that artsies like to use artsy tools.
The whole idea of getting developers to 'design' is stupid.
Re:Developers Developers Developers are not Design (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I think it's a cop out to claim them to be so totally different and "asking a coder to do artwork is silly".
I work with many people who are excellent coders and who are also excellent designers. In fact, some of the best programmers I know are also artists (painters, photographers or musicians) and can do excellent web and UI design.
So, if you're a coder
Re:Developers Developers Developers are not Design (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this "left brain, right brain" thing is just nonsense. Ask a neurologist. There's a popular myth that revolves around separation of brain function into creative and analytical thinking. The problem is that is complete bullshit. If you take a normal brain, there are "creative" centers in both hemispheres, and likewise with analytical skills.
Biology and evolution don't divide skills up into "creative" and "analytical" categories. The binary division of the two is a human conceit--not without its uses, but it has no place in talking about how the brain works.
Now, THAT being said, "left brain" and "right brain" are, regardless of science, common rhetorical devices used to divide people into analytical and creative categories. Lots of people have aptitudes one way or the other, so it's easy to think that you're naturally one or the other, and that's the way God made you, so be it.
But I think that's bullshit, too. I know far too many incredibly creative engineers, architects, and coders--look at www.hackaday.com if you can't think of any you know, yourself. And I know a hell of a lot of artists and musicians who sat down in front of Photoshop or Pro Tools for the first time as said "Ah-ha!" and did brilliant things.
I'll bet that a lot of people discover one particular aptitude early and focus on that, failing to develop other skills. When I was 12, I was about as good of a programmer as I was a piano player or a painter. But since I spent a lot of time coding, guess what, I'm a pretty damn good coder and a shitty piano player. That doesn't mean I couldn't have been a good piano player, just that it takes years to get good.
Comments are still a little thin, but I suspect we're going to hear a lot more people complaining about how coders can design, and designers can't code. I say, right now, fuck that. I know far too many people who bridge the gap, sometimes iat surprising moments. There are smart people, and there are not-so-smart people.
So who knows? Maybe there's something to this idea of "designer-cum-developer". From the tone of the comments, it doesn't seem like anyone's tried it, much.
Re:Developers Developers Developers are not Design (Score:3, Insightful)
Please stop confusing design with art.
J
Re:Developers Developers Developers are not Design (Score:4, Interesting)
Aren't we? Oh bugger. (Score:2)
My PhD supervisor thinks I'm great at design, so by deduction, my technical career is absolutely fucked.
Bugger.
Re:Developers Developers Developers are not Design (Score:3, Insightful)
Asking a coder to do artwork is silly.
Actually, both are artsy type of brain activities. Hence why good programmers usually have a good ability to work from both sides of the brain as well.
Go look up Bridged Brains, there are a lot of people out there that can use more of both sides of their brain at once, even if you can't.
Oh, also, these tools are for designers for the most part, not developers, developers take the output of these tools, shove it into Visual Studio fo
Good practice (Score:2, Insightful)
what a goal! (Score:2, Funny)
Just like the Visual studio turns designers into developers?
It will take more than Mr. Sparkle [t-shirtking.com] to do that!
Looks good. (Score:2)
Re:Looks good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, you could've just said "Interface Builder" and saved yourself a bunch of typing.
Re:Looks good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I must say MVC is a big step forward. In 1978.
This developer/designer split allows me as a programmer to focus on writing the actual logic code. The designer can then change the GUI-layout at will, without having to involve me in the process at all.How the hell have you people been programming for the past decade? :( I've only been doing this for a couple years, Cocoa, RoR, php, some C command-line Unix stuff, but I know what to expect from a GUI development platform.
Now, we can return to our scheduled programming of bashing at the Redmond Beast with all the might we care to summon.Hmmm. Only say it if you mean it. I don't mean to be snarky, but this is the fourth post I've seen commending XAML and Avalon and Vista, and each time the poster doesn't seem to realize that other GUI developers have had these features for decades in some cases. It is good for MS that MS gets its house in order, but these innovations, despite the hundreds of millions they have poured into them, get Windows to where other platforms were in 2000.
Re:Looks good. (Score:2)
Re:Looks good. (Score:3)
Yes, it is. So, why did Microsoft start doing it in the first place?
These tools, as far as I saw them presented at the PDC, seem like a good help in that direction. XAML seems very sweet, Avalon looks awesome. I tell you, my friends, this stuff does not suck.
What sucks is that Microsoft
Re:Looks good. (Score:2)
No, what sucks is that they ship broken things in the first place and have done so for 20 years, even though better technology was available then.
Are you just pissed off because Microsoft has improved themselves?
No. I'm pissed off that we have to pay the dues for Bill Gates and his employees learning computer science on the job. I'm also pissed off that Microsoft has killed off most of the technically superior competitors through illegal and unfair monopolistic p
Play The Match Game (Score:5, Funny)
Gene Rayburn: I guess that's fair since they've already turned the __________ into __________ !
Paul Linde: _______________________
Betty White:______________________________
Charles Nelson Reilly:_______________________
Fannie Flagg:________________________________
Before the Microsoft sucks comments begin (Score:2, Insightful)
I not saying we should deliver trucks of money
developers into designers?! (Score:2)
Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't let your Vet perform your dental work and don't let your dentist neuter your pets .
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
uh, Newsfactor? (Score:2)
Not interactive (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, interactive: (Score:2)
Newsfactor Confused? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me or did Newsfactor just completely miss the point and then make one up?
Newsfactor says "Microsoft wants to turn developers into designers." They also mention how Microsoft wants to eliminate the role of the designer.
Microsoft says it's to "Facilitate collaboration between designers and developers...." They talk about separating code from UI design and creating a back and forth channel between designers and developers.
I think I'll go with Microsoft's line, since they are actually the ones who
Gee thanks (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is that effective organizations already have good communication between designers and engineers. I'm sure I'm speaking with a bit of self-interest but I don't think it's fair to the
As with many other disciplines... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they became Engineers, who made things practical.
And now they are turning into Artists, to make them beautiful.
Oh, well...
Free Download (Score:2, Informative)
They make me feel PRETTY! (Score:3, Funny)
Glitter Happy Fun Messenger
Bubbly Bunny Chocolate Word
Giggle Tehe Goodtime Player
Candy Candy Popcorn Exchange
DESTROY INOPERABILITY (Score:2)
As someone.... (Score:2)
NOoooo!!! Make it go away!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I could be wrong here but so far, Microsoft's history in this area is not good.
Why this could be good news (Score:2)
Then again, MS will either release a product that is so uber-shitty that only the most hardcore MS Developers will use it or it probably will build a product that hat "proprietary lock-in" written all over it. So Adbe won't have any competition in the first place.
What happened? (Score:2)
Let me guess: in 1999, some Microsoft marketing employee fell into Bill Gates's cryogenic tube and they finally found him and thawed him out?
Misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
What this new stuff really does is *disconnects* the UI design from the source code, so that a designer can use one tool to work on the UI while a progammer uses visual studio to put some code behind it.
So rather than "turning designers into developers", it really "lets designers and developers work together better". Or something like that.
smart move (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft has cleverly spotted this opportunity.
Also, Microsoft already has much of the necessary technology in various office addons that most people don't even know about (e.g. MS Publisher, photo editor), various stuff from their research department (mainly photo editing), and other stuff like their movie editor. And finally with some acquired components you can build a pretty interesting suite that is not so capable as the high end offerings from Adobe and Macromedia but cheap and usable. That's a good position to start from and over time they'll be able to add features to make the product more interesting.
Ideal for home users that want to edit their holiday pics, ideal for small businesses wanting to make a brochure, etc. In fact good enough for the majority of people who own a photoshop license, a dreamweaver license or an illustrator license. It's amazing how many people buy stuff they don't need. At the office we have a few photoshop licenses. The most advanced thing that ever happens there is to crop a few photos and create some transparent gifs, that sort of stuff. All the artwork we use in our website is actually delivered by professional design studios. Only recently the use of the gimp was promoted for this kind of stuff.
The world is full of users for who photoshop (or it's lightweight derivatives) is overkill or who do not need the full capabilities of illustrator or who do not need to develop complex webpages in inDesign or dreamweaver and who generally feel intimidated by all of the previous tools. Yet these people want to create stuff. They don't want to shop for this tool or that tool. Instead they want the tools on their PC when they buy them. People are lazy, most of them never buy software after their new PC is delivered.
And who happens to have a big influence on what is preinstalled? Right, Microsoft. Imagine how many people will toggle that nice MS Design Studio checkbox on the dell site (hell, why not it's only XX $ and I'll be able to do foo with it). Imagine how many companies will be tempted to spend a few dollars per desktop for this. It's easy money for MS. Even if it's only 1 percent of their users, that still is a huge amount of money.
You could argue that they are abusing their market position. You could also argue that other companies have simply failed to fill this gap in the market for years. Adobe only recently started to make consumer versions of their tools. You need to buy them individually and the full suit of tools is for high end users with big budget only.
Re:Quartz (Score:4, Informative)
I hope not, 'quartz' was the codename for DirectShow and the runtime library is still named 'quartz' as well.
Proud Mac user
Good for you.
Re:hmmmm (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Funny)
So can I, Brain, but where are we going to find a can of cream, a gerbil and two peacock feathers at this time of night?
Re:Dear Lord, I hope not... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a software developer, but I do have an eye for creativity. I wrote my own library of classes to allow me to create more expressive and innovative interfaces for applications. I can easily