This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


19 posts / 0 new
Last post
muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2
Photoshop CS2 keeps crashing on Snow Leopard (Rosetta PPC emulation)

I've not used Photoshop much, but it comes handy from time to time to crop images, resize them or rotate a scanned picture or something... And I think I've used Photoshop 9.0.2 in the past on my Intel Macs without issues.

Recently, Photoshop keeps crashing.

I'm specifically using CS2 because it was the "Giveaway" from Adobe, when they made it openly available for everybody, including serial numbers and updates, but didn't include any limitations like that you have to had previously bought it and owned a license. They just put it there, then the media picked up on it and they wrote "free CS2". That is when I took it. It was later that Adobe made it clear that it was supposed to be for existing customers only. Well, at that time I considered myself an existing customer already! Which is why I also see CS2 as the version I should use legally.

But now, on my Mac mini 2011, Photoshop crashes reproducibly after about 1-2 minutes, if I do something or not, it will crash after approximately that amount of time. When I'm quick I can resize and rotate an image, save it, and the image is okay. But it's a PITA.

So, I'm wondering... Given these circomstances, if I should be allowed to use an Intel-native version of Photoshop instead? Like CS3?

As I said, I use it for pretty trivial and basic stuff. I don't think that Adobe really looses money from me, as I would never buy this product for just rotating images once a year...

Sadly, MG lacks a german version of CS3...

Comments

24bit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Nov 19

As far as I recall CS2 did run without issues on my 32bit Snow Leo T60.
But for a replacement, what about these?
Creative Suite 3
Photoshop 11 (CS4)
Creative Suite 4 Std

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

I haven't run Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta, so can't comment about issues there.

But I do run Photoshop CS1 under Rosetta and I do not experience any problems with this earlier version.

There is a German copy of Photoshop CS1 here, and if all you want it for is simple editing tasks, then this may all you need.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

Thanks. I'll try the CS1 version.

Fun fact: on my Power Mac G5 under Jaguar (10.2.8 G5 version) I cannot install CS2. It complains about not enough memory. I have 8 GB installed, so this cannot be it.
On the Intel-Mac-mini CS2 used to work without issues. I recently updated from a dual-core to a quad-core server version of the Mac mini 2011. Maybe the four cores make it crash?

Also, I just remembered, that there must be an older version of The GIMP which would also be sufficient.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

I'm specifically using CS2 because it was the "Giveaway" from Adobe, when they made it openly available for everybody, including serial numbers and updates, but didn't include any limitations like that you have to had previously bought it and owned a license.

Not true. Despite what many web-"journalists" claimed, they weren't a free "giveaway" at a all. The legal conditions on the website clearly stated that the versions Adobe was putting on their website for download were meant to be for those who already had a license and still needed to run the old versions. It was done because Adobe was turning off the authentication servers for them and they wouldn't have continued to work.

It wasn't just CS2. Many of the older versions of Creative Suite (up to CS5 I think) were put up on Adobe's website for the same reason.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

As far as I remember there was no indication on the download site stating that you need to already have a license. You just saw the downloads, the system requirements and the serial numbers. I also wondered what that all was about. And it wasn't just web-journalists, also respectable media like computer magazines (printed!) stated the same, simply because Adobe failed to make it clear what the downloads were meant for. I think it was after an additional month or so that Adobe reacted and finally reveiled the original intent. IMHO since the downloads were there, openly, without any comment on their intent, even a reasonable thinking person would argue that it was Adobe's shortcoming, and theirs alone. Adobe later said that CS2 is old and shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't be used anymore anyway. True for the most part, but not for those who use old hardware and software, like we here at the MG.

I'd say the opposite of well done is done with good intentions, but wrong... Adobe did it wrong. But it's our benefit. And again: I wouldn't have bought Photoshop or the Creative Suite -- it's way above my payrole. But I am thankful that they made it available in this way. Therefore: Thank you, Adobe! I also honor their decision to release the sources of Photoshop 1.0. Well done!

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

It was always one of the terms in the legal small print agreement (that nobody bothers to read) that you were meant to already own a licence. It was then later amended to also appear on the main webpage because of all the hopeless web-"journalists" incorrectly publicising it as a "giveaway", including the fools at places like Macworld!

That of course didn't stop loads of greedy people simply downloading and using it for free anyway. Adobe would have been better off releasing a updater patch that simply removed the authentication code from an original install of the apps.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

Yes, I understand that part: It was meant that way... from Adobe.
It's like putting some chocolate in front of kinds and tell them that it was not meant for them. See what happens.

Additionally I don't think that too much harm was done by this, because people who really need the Creative Suite won't be happy with such an outdated version anyway. And for those who use old Macs it was a gift. Maybe one not meant to be, but one none-the-less. And what difference does it make? I see the Creative Suite 1, 3 and 4 available for those who didn't buy it.

There once was an article about hacks, cracks and stuff like it, and that even ligit owners of a license sometimes used cracked software, because of the hazzle of software activation and required re-activation. Imagine your company depends on Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator running 24/7, and suddenly the software says: "Sorry, I cannot reach the activation server. Something is wrong, I'm going to quit working for you until I again reach my Adobe server..." Then you are the one with a down-time, with your deadlines not holding, with your money at stake. That's why, I heard, even people owning a license sometimes prefer the offline and cracked version that doesn't need that (re-)activation server.

Also, this kind of software is not going to be around anymore from now on. They don't make it anymore. Software from today requires constant internet, is updated monthly and you pay monthly. This kind of "pay once, own forever" kind of software is the last of its kind. It doesn't work on modern macOS or Windows, the loss on the side of Adobe is very limited. They won't even feel any loss at all.

BTW, I'll also try to get The GIMP for Snow Leopard, it should do the job as well.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

It's like putting some chocolate in front of kinds and tell them that it was not meant for them. See what happens.

There was a behavioural study done a few years ago were little kids were left in a room by themselves with a bowl full of candy. They were told not to touch it, and if they didn't take any then they would be allowed to have some when the adult got back. Most of the kids didn't touch it, a couple took some candy, and one basically stuffed his mouth full of it (and then of course lied, saying he didn't take any, despite having chocolate all around his mouth).

A similar or add-on to that left two kids in the room. In some cases a 'bad' kid tried to coax the 'good' kid into taking the candy.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

BTW, I'll also try to get The GIMP for Snow Leopard, it should do the job as well.

Since version 2.8.2, the GIMP is (Intel only) Mac OS X native. Prior to version 2.8.2, the GIMP required X11 installed and running on a Mac, before it could load.

The Mac GIMP v2.8.2 requires Snow Leopard 10.6.0 or later to run.

I'm not sure which GIMP version stops running on Snow Leopard. I've only tried the earliest 2.8.2 versions.
The newest Mac versions of the GIMP require Mavericks or later Mac OS's.

Native OS X versions are located here for downloading, versions 2.8.2 and newer.

Tho' I'd rather use Photoshop, even version 8 (CS1) on Rosetta, than the OS X native GIMP. I think it's a lot faster to load and easier to use. Maybe I'm just more familiar with Photoshop.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

GraphicConverter is great for many simple image tasks such as rotating, cropping, resizing, etc. You can still get some of the older versions from the developer's website (versions 5 and 6 are now free, but don't qualify for a discounted upgrade to a newer version).

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

Thanks, I got that as well, but never really got into it. In other words: Photoshop feels more natural to me than GraphicConverter. But GIMP really is the best option for me.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

I found GIMP here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/files/. I wasn't sure which builds those were, but I found GIMP 2.6.11 I had downloaded almost a decade ago from the official GIMP site and compared it: it is identical. So those really are the official builds, saved for future use on older versions of Mac OS X.

  • 2.6.11 for Tiger (Universal)
  • 2.6.11 for Leopard (Universal)
  • 2.8.10 for Snow Leopard (x64 build)
  • 2.8.6 for Snow Leopard (32-Bit build)
  • 2.8.14p2 for Lion
  • 2.8.6p1 for Mountain Lion
  • 2.8.14p2 for Mavericks
  • 2.8.18 for Yosemite and El Capitan
  • 2.8.18p1 for Sierra

The version for Sierra most likely also works on High Sierra, Mojave and Catalina, although the current version would be 2.10.

I wonder why it isn't possible to backport newer versions of a software, such as GIMP, to older versions Mac OS X. I am not a programmer, so I certainly cannot do it, but would it really be so hard to compile GIMP, say, on Mac OS X 10.2 for all native PowerPC-Macs, and one on, say, Snow Leopard, for all native Intel-Macs?

I don't know which versions require X11 (XQuartz actually) and which don't, but I think since 2.6 they were native Mac OS X applications using the Cocoa API instead of X11. The GIMP 2.4 definitely was still an X11 application.

I'm coming from Linux, so actually I'm more used to GIMP than to Photoshop. I prefer GIMP over Photoshop, but started to use CS2 because it also runs on my Power Macs. The minimum for CS2 is Jaguar 10.2.8, which I still use and like a lot. Since there is no GIMP for such old versions of Mac OS X, I kind of had to divert to Photoshop, but I'm constantly searching the menus and toolbars...

Just one hint when using The GIMP: select the One-Window-Mode in the menu under "Windows", in German "Einfenster-Modus" unter "Fenster". It feels way more natural this way, and you can minimize all of GIMP as one single window much better than having to minimize all GUI elements separately. In that sense, GIMP never became a real native Mac OS application...

[Update] Ah, and there is an "Aqua" theme as well, so it even feels more natural under Snow Leopard... Nice! (The default theme is the "Pro" theme, which is kind of a dark theme, which seems to be popular these days...)

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

I don't know which versions require X11 (XQuartz actually) and which don't, but I think since 2.6 they were native Mac OS X applications.

According to the GIMP .org main page (linked to in my previous post):
- "Prior to version 2.8.2, the GIMP required X11 installed".

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

Okay, thank you. Good to know for the Power Macs.

BTW, there is no GIMP archive here at the garden. Should there be one?

24bit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Nov 19

Sure, why not - if the open source licences do not tell otherwise. Wink

I was using early GIMP versions with Suse 10 or so, due to lack of alternatives, but never liked it much. I think I still have a X11 version on a Snow Leo installation too.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

Just for the record, I also tested Illustrator and InDesign. They don't crash. I then uninstalled VersionCue, as it cannot even be configured on an Intel-Mac and I thought, maybe it's that incompatiblity, but no: Photoshop still crashes, regardless what I do (even idleing around) after a minute or two.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

So, there seems to be more to it than I initially suspected. A game crashed on me as well, but I suspected it was not SL compatible, and then GIMP also crashed once. Maybe there's something wrong with my Mac mini, like fault RAM or other faulty hardware, or it is just the installation... Anyway, aside from Photoshop no other applications crashes so reliably, so I suspect it's the software... Maybe a driver I installed and have long forgotten about it, or something alike...

EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGSEGV)
KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS

SNakApple's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

Hi there,

Some additional informations about the error report could help us to solve your problem. Could be a bad font or a plug-in issue...

Franky