Actually, you don’t need to upgrade every time.
From the Adobe Photoshop CS2 upgrade page:
Preorder Adobe Photoshop CS2 Upgrade
To install this upgrade successfully, you will need a licensed version of Adobe Photoshop CS or Adobe Photoshop 7.0 or earlier, on the same platform as this purchase.
So if I wanted to upgrade, my version 6 would qualify me.
Adobe isn’t buying Macromedia, it’s a merger.
My greatest concerns are that the companies will make twice the amount of patents and raise prices. But maybe the extra features will be worth it.
YAY! Now Microsoft can buy out Adobedia! 
I’m wondering about how this whole patent thing is gonna pan out… Eventually SOME law maker has to realize what the implications are, don’t they?
yeah, and they are grinning 
Alltaken
Why would it do that? It needs companies that make innovative software so they have something to copy…
Anyway, we had a nice joke on this article a our office (I thought it was nice, so what does that say?)
me: I’m glad adobe bought macromedia, I never understood a single bit of flash, and I know how to use ps.
col: I’m the opposite, I understand flash by looking at it, and hate adobe stuff.
me: Well, then there is a future in mm for me!
It’s not that macromedia invented flash ofcourse.
Let’s find out if this means we will get a better dreamweaver or that we’ll get stuck with goLive (bleh!)
And a new range of better software:
a) Pdflash ( pdf + vectors + lingo + intergrated in web )
b) Photofire ( Photoshop makes real web images )
c) Atmos3d ( Atmosphere gets a new spin in Director3d ? Or does this stay on the shelf?)
d) Illuhandline ( Vectors arn’t dead )
e) PremiereFx ( Premiere + Afterfx + hmm)
And I would not mind some PhotofireIllufreestream ( .pfifs ) files on my harddisk
LOL whatever, good stuff
i think i would have a mental breakdown trying to keep track of all the product names.
Alltaken
They have a problem with the apps that are in direct competition:
Illustrator vs. Freehand
GoLive vs. Dreamweaver
(sort of) Photoshop vs. FireWorks ?
Dreamweaver is usually regarded as the best out there for web authoring, while Illustrator vs. Freehand are pretty head to head I would think.
What I think they will do, is create new products where these heavy conflicts are. A new vector app, and a new web authoring app. This would actually be quite good, as it would allow the new company to remove any bloat (ahem, Illustrator!) that may have crept in over time.
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
That’s an article about a guy leaving netscape in 1999.
These lines stick out for me however:
What we did from 1996 through 1999 was coast along, riding the wave caused by what we did before.
Why? Because the company stopped innovating. The company got big, and big companies just aren’t creative. There exist counterexamples to this, but in general, great things are accomplished by small groups of people who are driven, who have unity of purpose. The more people involved, the slower and stupider their union is.
And there’s another factor involved, which is that you can divide our industry into two kinds of people: those who want to go work for a company to make it successful, and those who want to go work for a successful company. Netscape’s early success and rapid growth caused us to stop getting the former and start getting the latter.
Losing my job because I delete Photoshop/Illustrator/ect off all our systems and replace them with Gimp/inkscape, thus crippling our ability to get actual work done == a cost I’m not willing to pay 
Anyway, as a CS suite user I really have a bad feeling about this for several reasons. My biggest problem though is with Adobes HORRIBLY inconsistent interface design. I hope that this dosn’t get worse as a result of the aquisition, but I’m not holding my breath.
This all makes the rumours that Apple was preparing a ‘photoshop killer’ to give away with OSX all the more interesting.
All the talk about the ‘adobeopoly’ going after OSS projects is premature in my opinion; Gimp/Inkscape ect simply are not threats because they are not comprable in quality or the range of functions they offer. Maybe if the gimp folks cleaned up its interface, caught up to photoshop in terms of raw functionality (It dosnt even have adjustment layers yet), and most importantly do something instead of cloning Adobe (directional graph based node system instead of a tree based layer system anyone? Resolution independent painting capabilities ala’ Satori?), maybe then Adobe might try and squash them.
Cheers,
Xarf
That’s what I’d like them to do, although I suspect Illustrator will just become more of a bloated mess, and add yet more tool palettes.
Illustrator is in my mind Adobe’s worst major app. It lacks the attention to detail in usability that makes Photoshop so good and fast to work with. Whereas with Photoshop all other bitmap packages don’t make sense if you use other vector programs then Illustrator doesn’t make sense.
Illustrator feels like a clunky font editor that’s had buttons added to it until it’s reached what it is today. (And anyone that doesn’t think that really needs to use a decent vector graphics program to find out).
For example?
http://www.xara.com/products/xarax/
Derived from a product called ArtWorks on the Acorn Archimedes (old computer) that still remains the most usable vector graphics package ever created.
What I see as the problem with the industry is that Adobe has reached industry-standard status even before they release a product.
If Adobe produces a new vector app after this, every major graphics firm in the company will snap it up like a hotcake. They automatically assume - because of Adobe’s reputation - that it’s the latest and indubitably greatest. Which, as is evident in the last few posts, it isn’t, necessarily.
It gives artists such as myself - who may have all the power of Photoshop and Illustrator - who use lesser known packages like GIMP a much harder time to break into the design field. While perhaps we can create stuff that’s comparable in quality, we get a strike against us before we even fill out a job applicatoin because we “don’t know Photoshop.”
That’s part of the reason I don’t like this acquisition. It just strengthens Adobe’s grip on the market as the all-powerful graphics god. Where they go, the execs will follow. Nevermind the people who actually have to use the tools (it’s like kitchen appliances being designed by engineers, NOT by cooks!).
The design and print industry isnt full of fools you know. InDesign 1.x was pretty pathetic and lacked core functionality and it was reflected in its rate of acceptance in the industry. Adobe is finally starting to iron things out with InDesign and suprise suprise, it’'s getting wider acceptance because of it. It still isn’t going to supplant Quark Xpress anytime soon though.
Secondly, in the design industry, while it mostly boils down to your portfolio you still need to have the computer skills to jump right in and be productive at the company your seeking work at. Gimp is not nearly as powerrfull as photoshop and inkscape is not nearly as usefull as illustrator, so unless your portfolio is absolute dynamite a prospective employer would be making a rational bussiness decision in not hiring someone who has a ‘handicap’ to overcome.
Cheers,
Xarf
Zarf - Perhaps you’re right. It could be my own jaded perspective that makes me say this. I feel like there’s a lot of “oooh, Adobe!” going on in the industry. But that’s just me.
I’m not sure if I agree with your statement that GIMP is less powerful than Photoshop. I don’t want to start a war here, though, so if you care to carry on via PM I’m curious to see where GIMP lags behind for you.
i think that this will only make GIMP stronger
The main feature GIMP lacks that I need is integrated CMYK color mode. It’s essential if you’re doing any sort of print work.
Hate to bump this thread, but I just found this and thought it kinda funny.