Photoshop 2.0

[Tom in HD]

I have Photoshop 2.0. Pretty ancient, I know. Since installing Leopard on my Mac, it won't open. Does anyone know of a way to modify it to work or do I need to get a newer version?
Thanks

[pepegot1]

Get a new version-the improvements are more than worth it.

[AlanHK]

Perhaps it will run in an emulator.
Try mini VMac which emulates a Macintosh Plus and can run OS 6 or 7.
See also http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bit/4811/EmulateMac.htm for system software.

[rumplestiltskin]

IIRC, Photoshop 7 was the first OSX-native version (although for PPC, not Intel). You -might- be able to run that old version in Leopard.

Alternatively, if your Mac is able to boot into OS9, do that (if you don't want to upgrade your Photoshop).

[terryj]

Leopard kills classic emulation.
Rosetta will emulate PPC code,
but will not allow for PPC apps
that need OS 9 specific language.

Best to at lest get up to PS 7, and you
can run that on Intel ( somewhat slowly) thru Rosetta.

And Tom, please fill in your Profile's Computer Specs when you have time.
It will enable us to help you faster if we know your computer specs.

[orsetto]

Photoshop 2.0 really is ridiculously old: nice application but I haven't used it since my Quadra days! Do you keep it around to work with specific files or plugins? What Mac do you have? The Classic environment necessary for PS 2.0 does not work on the Intel-based Macs, only the G4s, so I assume you have a G4. When you upgraded to Leopard, it probably moved or deactivated the Classic files on your Mac: I'm not even sure if Apple supports Classic mode in Leopard. If they do, you may need to re-install your OS9 components to get it running again. Apple has been very cavalier about trashing the Classic environment during the last two OSX upgrades, it wouldn't surprise me if they've finally killed it. As someone else mentioned, the first "modern" Photoshop that was OSX-compatible was version 7.0. But note verson 7.0 (aka CS-1) and CS-2 run like crap on the Intel Macs: absolutely dog-slow-shoot-me-now. If anyone out there is Mac shopping, consider the version of Photoshop you own or can get affordably: if you don't have the scratch for a CS-3 upgrade, you'll want to stick with a G4-G5 Mac.

If you have a particular fetish for playing with PhotoShop 2.0, why not just buy an old Mac it was designed for? The Quadra 700 was a reliable, gorgeous, compact, well-put-together, high-feature machine in its day: mine cost $3,900 in 1992 and it was a store demo at Sam Ash Music! (I think I finally paid it off last year, but at least the store accidentally left a whopping 20 MB of demo memory in it, which was a $600 bonus to me- sweet!). Anyway today you can buy this configuration easily on eBay for 99 cents + $30 shipping from dozens of sellers. Depreciation on old computers is terrifyin, innit?

[terryj]

But note verson 7.0 (aka CS-1) and CS-2 run like crap on the Intel Macs: absolutely dog-slow-shoot-me-now.

Not true.
Adobe Photoshop CS2, Intel Duo Core MackBook Pro, 2GB of Ram, Leopard 10.51 no hang ups emulating through Rosetta.
Adobe Photoshop CS2, Intel 1.9ghz iMac, 1gb of Ram, OSX 10.4.11, just a fine as could be.

Don't know what your seeing, or your specs, but I can say that is NOT the case.

As for buying an old mac...nope. If you find one, great.
But why invest to get and keep old Hardware running?
Spend the money and get a compatible version of Photoshop:

Try this deal

or this one

or heck, take a night course and get this deal.

[orsetto]

orsetto:
But note verson 7.0 (aka CS-1) and CS-2 run like crap on the Intel Macs: absolutely dog-slow-shoot-me-now.

terryj:
Not true. Don't know what your seeing, or your specs, but I can say that is NOT the case.

If I had a nickel for each time I've been told pre-CS3 Photoshop "runs fine" on Rosetta, I'd be a millionaire . Apparently it does run acceptably for some people in some configurations, for a lot of others it runs like molasses. At present I am using mostly CS1 and a few instances of CS2 on a fleet of Intel Core Duo Minis 1.66-1.8Ghz and Intel iMacs 2.0Ghz, all with a gig of memory. They dra-g-g-g at everything from opening the program to opening files to importing images: yuck. I haven't had this kind of lag since the early PPC days of 7.1.x. The identical software running on our older G4 or G5 units does not lag at all. Maybe your 2 gigs of memory helps, I haven't been able to force that issue yet since they don't want to pay for all the Minis to be opened and upgraded. Maybe I'll just try this on the QT with one of the iMacs that have a RAM upgrade door and see if it helps any. If it does I might have an argument to bring the CEO. Unfortunately the pricing options on CS3 upgrades are a little much so I have been turned down flat each time I ask about doing a few. In my division PS is not a "critical" application but it is used by near everyone a couple times a day to make minor touchups to legacy images. The prevailing theory goes if it runs at all without crashing, we should live with it.

As for buying an old mac...nope. If you find one, great.
But why invest to get and keep old Hardware running?

I was being (mostly) facetious when I suggested an old Mac, but there actually are people who have an obsession (or less often, a genuine need) to run seriously outdated software. Since Macs have gone thru more architecture changes than Manhattan over the years, you really do need an ancient Mac to wring the best performance from some ancient apps: they rely on the old hardware and don't run too well (if at all) via emulation under newer CPUs. The only cost is in physical desk space: people literally give away Quadras and PPC601-604 Macs for free. Tons of ads that say "please just take it off my hands, I can't bear to throw it away or recycle it". There is a particular emotional attachment to the 680x0 pre-PowerPC Macs: folks hate the thought of trashing their old friends.

[edDV]

Photoshop 2 is 16 years old (1992)!
I think that was even before PowerPC.

[terryj]

orsetto:
At present I am using mostly CS1 and a few instances of CS2 on a fleet of Intel Core Duo Minis 1.66-1.8Ghz and Intel iMacs 2.0Ghz, all with a gig of memory. They dra-g-g-g at everything from opening the program to opening files to importing images: yuck

A lot of what you just described is partly responsible due to SLOW 4200 and 5400 rpm drives in the Mac Minis,
which is why there not reccommended on this forum and others for heavy graphic/video work.
You need a minimum spec of 7200rpm drives to handle intensive read/writes to the disc.

More memory does help, but using machines with Hard drives built for the spec works even better.


As for your iMacs, I'd point the finger at ram, but also look at the disc integrity...
how often do you run Disc Utility? DiscWarrior, fsck -y -f?

As for buying an old mac...nope. If you find one, great.
But why invest to get and keep old Hardware running?

I was being (mostly) facetious when I suggested an old Mac,[snip] folks hate the thought of trashing their old friends.

point taken and acknowledged.

[Herve]

Best to at lest get up to PS 7, and you
can run that on Intel ( somewhat slowly) thru Rosetta.

Just for info, PS 7 is not compatible with Leo.
I needed to upgrade my old PS7, the "oldest" totoshop compatible with Leo is the one from CS1.

bye

[lordsmurf]

Photoshop 2 even predates me. I started with version 3. Prior to that, I used something that came with the scanner ($2000+ 300dpi SCSI-1).

Photoshop CS2 runs fine on an Intel Macbook I borrowed a few weeks ago. I saw zero lag. The system had 2GB of RAM.

Photoshop 7 and higher have all been RAM whores. This is the primary reason I still do ALL of my DVD menu creation work in v6, and why I use CS3 only for digital photo processing (ACR4, various filters, off a pro DSLR). I've just upgraded two systems RAM because of CS3 (2GB) and have one more machine to go (need 4GB, because I often run InDesign, Dreamweaver and PS at the same time ... not pretty on 1-2GB).

[milatchi]

If you look for it you can find the 1988 PhotoShop 0.63 beta around on the net. It is before it was an Adobe product and still being developed by John and Thomas Knoll who were working on it in their spare time at ILM.

I could be wrong, but I don' think it supported layers.

[Herve]

but I don' think it supported layers.

the first version with layers was the 3.0 (a revolution in PAO!).
Previous versions just supported "mask" (I don't remember the english translation) and everybody found it great at this moment
bye