Talk:Adobe Creative Suite

Adobe Elearniung version 1

Should the Adobe elearning suite ( which is composed of CS4) be included and on the comparison table? 122.108.11.212 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

release dates for previous versions

first i would like to add that in my opinion, whether it be right or wrong, is that cs, cs2 and cs3 should have their own pages. having one creative suite page limits the amount of valuable information that the wikipedia articles could be having.

at the very least, i would like to see the release dates for the first and second CS. I would like to be able to examine their product cycles with this information.

REMOVING THAT

I propose to remove the whole section.

This is a suite of commercial products

84.4.43.144 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) wftwr

UM. THAT IS LUDICROUS.

So? The Wizard of Oz was a commercial enterprise as well, both in book and movie form -- both were designed to make money. Most everything is. Your request is laughable on so many levels, especially considering the paramount importance of Adobe's products in just about every industry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.166.49 (talk • contribs).

CS3 Editions

Where's the CS3 edition info source? - PGSONIC 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is now sourced Pikablu0530 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

CS3 own article

CS3 is such a huge release, it should have its own article, while this article is about CS2. possibly after CS3 is actually released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamersedge (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

It is already released - just havn't shipped. There is already enough information on the web, and Adobe's website has already been replaced by CS3 info. I don't see why we require a separate article about CS2 because it is quite short and doesn't contain much information. A 'History' section is enough. Besides, Adobe Creative Suite refers to both CS2 or CS3, with CS3 replacing CS2, so there is no need to disambiguate them.Pikablu0530 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone who has interest in Adobe is clearly involved in writing this page, this should be an informative page, not an advertising. For instance, where is the information about older versions of this software?

At the bottom in the section "History". Feel free to expand on the section and improve any parts of the article. Pikablu0530 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't Disambiguate

No need. Sure it will be awkward for a short time with 2 active versions, but there is already enough here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.110.222.2 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Price

I added a line that Adobe is currently accepting pre-orders on their website, but I think we should put something down for the price of these packages. They put retail prices on the various wikipedia articles on video game consoles, so I don't see including that as making this a commercial article.DeviantCharles 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Icons and the Wheel-of-Icons

It seems like they changed the icon for Contribute from "Co" (as shown in the wheel) to "Ct" (in the new icons displayed).

Also, what does "Vc" stand for (on the yellow icon)? I'm pretty sure that is not for Version Cue CS3 because if you check out the official Adobe website, the icon for Version Cue is teal-like colour. Both the yellow "Vc" icon and the actual icon for Version Cue (the teal one) are on the wheel-of-icons. So what does "Vc" represent? Pikablu0530 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The blog that the wheel is from links to a 3-D "carousel" version at The Flash Blog, which identifies (at least by name) all but two of the icons. Both the yellow and teal icons in question are identified as Version Cue. Obviously this isn't hard evidence, but since Version Cue's product page shows only the teal version, it seems they abandoned both the yellow color scheme and the letters in the icon design at some point(s). 128.84.178.24 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Student Versions

There are student releases of the Adobe Creative Suite, whole or in part. Is this worth a mention somewhere?

I don't think so. Much software is offered in a range of pricing strategies including academic versions. Nothing particularly notable about Creative Suite in this regard. Notinasnaid 07:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

the idea of academic prices isn't common enough knowledge to not include in a wikipedia article, imo. Encyclopedic and comprehensive recording would include the concept of academic prices for this product.

However, it SHOULD be noted that with an Education Edition of an Adobe program:

• You cannot use it for commercial purposes.
• You cannot resell the product.
• You cannot transfer ownership (IE: Giving it as a gift.)
• You cannot return it to adobe itself, you must respect the vendor's return policy.

This is all indicated on their website (even if they are scattered.) 68.185.166.207 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this still true? I found this difficult to figure out based on the Adobe website. At the moment, this article states that "Starting with CS5, commercial use after graduation is now permitted.", but doesn't give any reference.

The site Prodesigntools.com says: "Since Creative Suite 5, the Student and Teacher Editions can be utilized for personal as well as commercial use, for all academic customers worldwide." http://prodesigntools.com/difference-between-adobe-cs5-student-editions-vs-regular.html I am not otherwise familiar with this site. They state that they are "an Authorized Adobe Affiliate since 2006". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.185.121 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Prices

We shouldn't have the prices, they not only vary massively by state and country, but even by store. And the fact they're in USD won't help the 5.7 billion other people :). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stock photos

I changed the link for the stock photos from Adobe stock photos to just stock photos as there wasn't an Adobe stock photos article & there was no point in creating one. Debate with me if you disagree. BlackSlivers 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose mentioning that it doesn't work!

I propose mentioning that the current version of Adobe CS3 is marred with installation errors, registration errors and activation errors, and that people should avoid or be wary of purchasing this product.

Well if you have reliable sources for the problems with Adobe CS3 then by all means add a section for that, but as far as telling people to be wary of purchasing this product, is not the kind of content that should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place where we should give or recive advice. --D.Kurdistani 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a studio's technical manager I can confirm major problems with CS3 + Intel Macs. We would move back to CS2 if it wasn't for the fact that it's not a universal application. Are American Color Imaging rep. also stated that other studios are having the same problems as us. My biggest complain would be with Bridge CS3, which appears to hang the systems daily and runs slower then the CS2 version. I'm convinced Adobe sabotaged Bridge to force people into Lightroom. --Nbritton 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

linux version

the box on the right says CS3 is avail on linux but i've found no proof of this whatsoever. can we have a citation please as well as a few sentences in the article? --AlexOvShaolin 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkmarks vs Xs

I think we should make the checkmarks "X"s. I know my Linux box as well as my laptop (w/ IE6) displays them as boxes, not checkmarks. I changed this once and it was reverted.Bronzey214 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where are the earlier CS version articles?

Were they just deleted or never existed? Why do they redirect here? This kind of smacks of bsAwotter (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They never existed. The earliest article on Adobe CS was preserved in the "History" section of the current article, which was basically a list of the softwares in each of the editions (Standard and Premium). --Pikablu0530 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Presto in CS3?

Could someone please confirm that Presto is still being used in Adobe Creative Suite 3? Articles that need updating are Opera (web browser), Presto (layout engine), and Adobe Creative Suite. And please put your reference in those articles, thank you. Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Adobe Acrobat Pro

Should we rename all the mentions of "Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional" to simply "Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro"? On Adobe's website it even shows the box saying Pro instead of Professional. Wikada - Talk Cont ISU 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes please do. I think the official product name is now just with the word "Pro" instead of "Professional". --Pikablu0530 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Break with Format

Either thru deletions or oversight the historical data for this suite is missing as most other wiki Adobe pages have. 198.103.223.51 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More detail in history?

One of the useful purposes of the historical information is helping to track correct licensing. Is it possible to track the history in a little more detail for this purpose? For example, CS3 now includes Acrobat 9 Pro, but it did not originally. When was this change made (I assume at release 3.3 on June 2, but cannot be sure), and what version or release of Acrobat was included before this change? Mrwipi (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Acrobat 8. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I'm the one who added the Criticism section. Okay I know it needs sources, but I'm at a loss of what kind of sources to include. Doing a simple Google search on "Adobe CS3 Installation", without any negative term, will return at least 100 articles (I'm too lazy to look beyond this) about the CS3 installer problem. Titles like "CS3 installation problems" "...headache" "...horror" "...punishing experience" "...failure" are ubuquitous. There are articles on Adobe forums, Adobe KB, countless blogs and independant forums. But as far as I can tell, there isn't what one might call an "authoritative" source on this; I wonder why the major journals haven't mentioned this... but then major journals don't often mention this kind of things. o (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm in total agreement with this madness of Adobe CS installer, I even write a blog entry about it [1]. I think we can use the Adobe's troubleshooting pages as sources. Like these [2] [3]. --Fa2f (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

With the release of CS4 and the credit crunch I am wondering whether adobe have taken any notice of there users in there new version as this petition was sent to the European union. Pricing is a major thing would it be worth having a table on how much the product varies from country to country and to different products!

--DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

colors of application icons

The colors of icons in the product family are chosen according to a certain system. I think it is interesting to mention the color wheel: http://element9.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/adobe_color_wheel.png

CS4 Release Date

Where are people finding the release date for CS4? Previously the article said October 15, now it says October 14, and even that editor admits that Adobe hasn't announced a release date yet (but claims his to be the "right" one). True, all the press release says regarding a ship date is that "Adobe Creative Suite 4 and its associated point products are scheduled to ship in October 2008." So... what's the deal? --TS1 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering this too. I was exited for the release today... but alas... no release. Who ever said that it was today made me sad :( --Shmithers (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2008 (PDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.205.79 (talk)

Torrent not provided

Made me laugh. But someone should probably remove it, and i second the idea that the CS's should have separate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.35.115 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Adobe upgrade policy

Adobe's upgrade policy is that the Creative Suite can be upgraded only to later versions of the Creative Suite. If you buy the Suite and then later decide you want to upgrade only one component of it, you have to pay the full price for the new version of that component, just as if you had no prior version. This is not made clear by Adobe and I think it would be useful to mention it here. However, (a) I'm not sure how best to fit it into the existing Wikipedia page, and (b) I can't provide a link to a Web page that states the policy clearly, because Adobe doesn't seem to provide such a Web page. I have had it clarified to me by Adobe support personnel, after I asked why my Photoshop upgrade refused to install. Torve (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Advert or Review

I am unable to decide between the Advert template

or the Review template

What does "CS4 will officially support 64-bit" mean? Did they get official permission from some government agency?

LOL 71.179.255.56 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Those who work with extremely large files may realize noticeably greater gains in performance, in some cases as dramatic as ten times the previous speed." Fact? Verifiable reference? Dramatic? Noticeably? Extremely - how large is that? What if I work with large files (extreme or otherwise) but this is the first version of the software I have used?

Any thoughts on which template to add to the article will be appreciated. Lame Name (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly an advertisement. Look at its structure; "New in Creative Suite 4" at the top before listing any applications or the breakdown of CS4 packages. TREX6662k5 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Although this article should not be removed, it should be re-organized because it's informative yet advertising. I think that BOTH of the templates should be put.

PS: "CS4 will officially support 64-bit" - means that the adobe products will be able to run under 64-bit systems in 64-bit mode. I think there should be a Support/Oppose poll for this.--EmpMac (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So the article should say... "CS4 will be able to run under 64-bit systems in 64-bit mode." I did know what it meant but politeness prevented me from expressing my real opinion of this article. I think it should be boldly edited which I will do, if nobody else does, when I have the time. Lame Name (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in the position of being a frequent user of adobe products- who is NOT a hardcore FAN of their software. Also I tend to recommend their programs to others- IN SPITE of the fact that I think much of their product is poor. It's all about their market penetration & their end results- AND wide familiarity with their interfaces. I wish there were more linked coverage of Critiques of the Adobe line- And also of their economic positioning. By killing the individual availability of the various pieces & Making them essentially "Modules" in the CS mothership, they have moved up out of the affordable range for small producers like myself . Also their ongoing behavior of Purchasing rival (And sometimes superior) software tools just for the purpose of closing them down is of interest as an example of predatory market practices. Just a thought.... MBD (talk) 17:15, 25 april 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.81.62 (talk)

CS5

Does anyone know if CS5 is in beta testing yet? Cousert (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's in alpha. It will be released April 2010. See this site devoted to CS5: CS5 --Shandris^{the azylean} 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I went to the Adobe site to check that out, and over there I heard that CS5 is not coming out in April 2010. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we put up info about CS5 being potentially released in April or other aspects of its support for Grand Central, Open CL, etc.? Cowicide (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough information to start a CS5 section, such as expected (or projected) beta or production release dates, designer/programmer insights, etc.? 71.179.255.56 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the section on CS5, objecting to the citation of a blog and a discussion board. I agree completely with the first objection, but the second reference actually directed to posts made by an official Adobe spokesman, telling forum members when to expect CS5 to be released. Since this article is about the entire collection of software packages from CS through CS4 and presumably including any future versions, it is certainly appropriate for there to be a section on CS5, provided the information meets WP standards. So, I'm reintroducing the section, and then leaving further maintenance to others. Msr657 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Correction; I don't actually care that much. Someone else can do it. Msr657 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Quick question, CS5 came out today, does anyone have it in the works to redo this page to CS5? (I don't want to go through converting everything to CS5 to find someone else has already made a start offline, or in a sandpit or something). (Symo85 (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

I won't be doing any major edits to update for CS5, though I agree the article needs some work otherwise. I did do the edition matrix though, and will add it to the talk page until it's ready to be merged into the an appropriate article section for CS5. --bithaze (T.C) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

System Requirements?

The article should list the System Requirements for each version, for Macintosh and Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe take it a further step, include info about performance by OS (e.g. WinXP, Vista32, Vista64, Win7, AppleOS, etc.), what does work and what doesn't depending on the OS, and so forth. 71.179.255.56 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

CS4 is 64b (fully?) enabled on Windows but not at all on MacOS. CS5 is partially 64b enabled on MacOS (what exactly?). I do feel disapointed. May someone make a more chapter on this?

CS5 Edition Matrix

Software	Design		Web Premium	Production Premium	Master Collection
	Standard	Premium
Photoshop CS5 Extended
Photoshop CS5
Illustrator CS5
InDesign CS5
Acrobat 9 Pro
Flash Catalyst CS5
Flash Professional CS5
Flash Builder 4 Standard
Dreamweaver CS5
Fireworks CS5
Contribute CS5
Premiere Pro CS5
After Effects CS5
Soundbooth CS5
OnLocation CS5
Encore CS5
Additional Components
Bridge CS5
Device Central CS5
Dynamic Link
CS Live

I just made this and am placing it on the talk page until: I've had a chance (within the next day or so) to verify that I typed everything correctly, and; there's a suitable section for CS5 in the article. After that point, this table can be merged into the article and probably removed from the talk page to reduce clutter. --bithaze (T.C) 08:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Add it! --Treekids (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like so many other wiki advertisements

1) What exactly is included in the package? Are there any guides? Are there any manuals? Even the Adobe web site doesn't say, but I bet they aren't, and don't tell you so you order thinking there is. Then they offer to sell you some at unreasonable prices. Regardless, it is information that should be here.

2) The fact that Adobe has the worst security vulnerabilities in the history of COTS is very important. Over more than a decade Adobe products stretch the limits of vulnerabilities... e.g. June 2009 critical (severe and important) vulnerabilities were reported for 'authplay' and 'flashplayer' across most versions of these common components shared by many Adobe products. 1 year later, June 2010 the same 2 components were found to have additional "critical" vulnerabilities. In conjunction with this, the exploits were discovered "in the wild" (actual cases) and the instructions and specifications for exploiting these vulnerabilities were publically published on the net. Seems to me they are too old and feeble to retool the products properly and the critical vulnerabilities will obviously continue as long as Adobe offers products for sale. Imagine 1 year later they are still finding major things wrong with products that were supposedly fixed. - DD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.52 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

CS 5.5?

Should we add a section on CS 5.5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.220.175 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think we should. CS 5.5 contains some major changes - particularly with Adobe Audition making a come back, and Soundbooth being discontinued. --Damaster98 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that CS5.5's release date is erroneous. It hasn't been released yet, just announced. It's not available in retail and any pages on CS5.5 still say "Pre-order." Official Adobe CS Twitter account confirms this: http://twitter.com/#!/Creativesuite/status/62894954082603008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.241.37 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, you can download CS5.5. It's on the trial server at Adobe and I have it on my laptop. Instructions are at http://pastebin.com/KSFeQq63. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashingYoshi (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

CS Live: Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform

Hi.

I just removed CS Live from the list of included software. Yes, Adobe lists those services and says "Adobe® CS Live online services integrate with Adobe Creative Suite® software" but this is a promotional effort and Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform. The neutral fact is that since CS Live is a collection of online services, it cannot possibly be part of a software suite. And it isn't. Plus, nearly all Adobe software "integrate" with each other.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

CS5

Just noticed that the text for CS5 has been deleted - is this deliberate?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.232.127 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does "Adobe Media Encoder" redirect to this page?

The page "Adobe Media Encoder" redirects to this page but this page has no reference to that. Can it be added? Magpie54 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

CS6 from CS5

If you look at the release times from CS5 to CS6, the time between the ungrade to CS6 did not allow enough time for CS5 before making minor changes to the software. It is same as CS6 but the expensive upgrade. I wonder if they release the more than charge and change the software the more it will be hacked as their are thousands of keygens available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.68.111 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger from Adobe OnLocation

Adobe OnLocation was tagged by DGG in September 2011 for merger into this article; however, no discussion was started, and apparently, no notice was posted here. As "Adobe OnLocation" is not standalone software and only part of Adobe Creative Suite, it does seem that "Adobe OnLocation" lacks independent notability and if not merged should be deleted. Merger seems better to me. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adobe giving away CS2 for free

Would it be noteworthy that Adobe has been giving away CS2 for free and continues to do, ever since they've shut down the original registration servers for CS2? Mac Users may encounter problems with the old installs on newer versions of MacOS, but especially Win Users up to Win7 and 8 can officially download and install all of CS2 Standard and Premium for free from the Adobe website now: http://www.adobe.com/de/downloads/cs2_downloads/ In order to make sure that only users who paid for CS2 to begin with will be able to make use of this, the downloadable installs require the original disks to be inserted in order to run. Also works with Adobe Production Studio disks (as is the case with me) that was available in parallel to CS2.

It's especially useful for people like me who still can't afford updating their legal hardware and software but for some reason need to install the Suite again and then find that their original disks for themselves don't work anymore because Adobe shut down the registration servers years ago. --85.182.140.98 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's Adobe's official, albeit cryptic announcement on the Adobe blogs on the shutdown of the registration aka activation servers for CS2, and indirectly refers to releasing CS2 as a free download (which they refer to as the final "update") for everybody who's originally purchased it: [4] Quote from the announcement: "The serial numbers provided as a part of the download may only be used by customers who legitimately purchased CS2 or Acrobat 7 and need to maintain their current use of these products." --85.182.140.98 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Creative Cloud Controversy is now widespread.

The Creative Cloud Controversy is strangely missing from this article. Is this an ad for Adobe or a wikipedia article? I honestly had to double-check the URL to make sure I was at wikipedia.

Source: Stormy reception for Adobe's Creative Cloud - Look at all the negative responses all over the Internet, but you can see it here on their own Facebook page as well: https://www.facebook.com/adobecreativecloud?ref=stream&hc_location=stream Rapidly growing petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Quite a storm is brewing, but you wouldn't know it if you get info from wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an effective marketing tactic - drum up outrage about the new version that has few improvements or new features for a few days then release the real product and appear to listen to customers. If they'd just announced CS7 as normal with the subscription option as well there would be hardly any interest in it. This way Adobe are getting coverage about the new product. Just like the apple maps stuff, and many other things to come in this brilliant new economy. 149.241.189.78 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, the controversy is growing larger every day. Cowicide (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Creative Cloud

Shouldn't there be an entire different article dedicated to Creative Cloud than the name being redirected here? I don't know if I understand correctly but aren't CS and CC two different things though they use the same programs?--Dom497 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There should be a separate Creative Cloud article at some point, yes. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Adobe AIR

AIR for Apple IOS Support Components is available for the CS, but not the rest.--Lmstearn (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

history of patch and updates? looking for a chronology

I'm trying to patch my copy of cs 5.5 photo shop raw but nothing from adobe is dated and lots of it doesn't even list compatibility of suite version. is there an encyclopedia, resource, or catalog of this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.226.155 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adobe Creative Suite. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adobe Creative Suite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070323064143/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200609/091806CreativeSuite.html to https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200609/091806CreativeSuite.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070323064143/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200609/091806CreativeSuite.html to https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200609/091806CreativeSuite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sandeep 2409:40E4:5D:C4F8:F8CD:7DFF:FEFB:339A (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)