What does adobe have against sheets.

[millhouse]

adobe seems to be the flagship of developers for the mac, i know there are probably bigger ones but when you think of good mac software usually adobe comes to mind.
so here's my question.
why doesnt adobe adhere to the guidlines of a mac os x application and use sheets? everytime i save anything in an adobe app there is no sheet, just that intrusive dialog box which haults my work in everything else in that app.
i've never understood it and perhaps someone has a good explination as to why there are no sheets in an adobe app to this day.

[johnq]

I assume it's because Adobe apps are Carbon and sheets are Cocoa-only?

[BuonRotto]

I believe that sheets are available to Carbon apps too as of either Jaguar or Panther. My guesses are that either Adobe wants to have their apps run on pre-Jag or Panther systems without a hitch or that sheets interfere with their cross-platform code in some way.

[cowerd]

Adobe uses their own brand of UI [crap]. They don't bother to follow Apple UI guidelines except where they see fit.

Re cross-platform: Now means Adobe pays attention to Windows UI first and foremost.

[Maffrew]

As a newb, i have to ask...

What are sheets?

[johnq]

Originally posted by Maffrew
As a newb, i have to ask...

What are sheets?

A sheet is a dialog box ("Save" usually) that is attached to the window it refers to. They are "non-modal", so you can go to other documents even though there may be other sheets waiting for your input.

Try it:
Open TextEdit, type something in a new document then try to close the window.

A "sheet" drops down asking if you want to save. But you can still make a new document or do other things in the app to other documents. Previously a "save" dialog box would prevent the user from doing anything else.

[Maffrew]

Aha, thanks for that. Very helpful explanation :)

[IonYz]

Well BBEdit didn't used to use sheets either. Then they asked the community where they should go, drop OS 9 and old code or keep up both versions. In the end everyone wanted a cleaner OS X port with the possibility of more features and drop OS X.

BBEdit 8 (newest) features more OS X native features like sheets and multiple document capabilities (think Xcode).

[millhouse]

well i can see legacy stuff, but the new adobe stuff runs souley on os x so its not like they have os 9 junk to worry about.

[Mr. Me]

Originally posted by millhouse
well i can see legacy stuff, but the new adobe stuff runs souley on os x so its not like they have os 9 junk to worry about. Adobe's newest Mac applications look like bad ports of Windows applications.

[JLL]

Originally posted by millhouse
so here's my question.
why doesnt adobe adhere to the guidlines of a mac os x application and use sheets? everytime i save anything in an adobe app there is no sheet, just that intrusive dialog box which haults my work in everything else in that app.
i've never understood it and perhaps someone has a good explination as to why there are no sheets in an adobe app to this day.

Because most of the apps allows you to have multiple windows with the same document/image/whatever and then you can't use sheets.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by cowerd
Adobe uses their own brand of UI [crap]. They don't bother to follow Apple UI guidelines except where they see fit.

Re cross-platform: Now means Adobe pays attention to Windows UI first and foremost. You all forget one key thing: all adobe products also run on windows, it is crucial to them to keep them the same - or as close as is reasonably acceptable, thus windows is holding adobe back from useing many of the "toys" that would unleash the beuty and power of OSX.

This is why I fear that Adobe will not take advantage of core*, how would it look to the purchaser if a program that costs the same is light years behind on windows? how would Adobe justify the high cost of the windows version? Or could they bring the windows version up to par with directx or some hard core open gl work...
Just my two cents.

[johnq]

Originally posted by a_greer
This is why I fear that Adobe will not take advantage of core*, how would it look to the purchaser if a program that costs the same is light years behind on windows?

Fear? Rejoice. Apple will break from the Adobe monopoly once and for all. It'll suck at first, but Apple will enable themselves, users and better companies than Adobe to easily create such apps.

Apple needs independence. If you can say "If Company X stops making App Y then Apple is doomed" then it's time for Apple to make their own version. No outside company should have that much clout, be it Microsoft or Adobe.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by johnq
Fear? Rejoice. Apple will break from the Adobe monopoly once and for all. It'll suck at first, but Apple will enable themselves, users and better companies than Adobe to easily create such apps.

Apple needs independence. If you can say "If Company X stops making App Y then Apple is doomed" then it's time for Apple to make their own version. No outside company should have that much clout, be it Microsoft or Adobe.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Back in the real world.

[cowerd]

You all forget one key thing: all adobe products also run on windows, it is crucial to them to keep them the sameThey are not the same. Acrobat is a festering sore on OS X compared to the windows version, and Adobe's last update of Acrobat brought us that crapalicious Office toolbar and icons even though its target Mac audience is designers. Not to mention dubious windows only features like importing AutoCAD layers that then can't be accessed in Illustrator or PS.

PS still runs better on a Mac.

and Illustrator should be thrown into the toilet on both platforms. Its too bad Freehand is so bad. So there you have it, best vector illustration program by default.

Adobe can't even keep consistency across its own app lineup. PS vs. Illustrator vs. inDesign. When layers start to behave the same way across all their apps I'll shut up and go home.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Messiah
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Back in the real world.

Um, what? Once Core Video/Image etc are available for developers (and some users) it'll be far less important to need Adobe's monolithic apps.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by johnq
Um, what? Once Core Video/Image etc are available for developers (and some users) it'll be far less important to need Adobe's monolithic apps.

I'm a Pro user who uses Adobe apps a min. of 8 hours a day. Like many Pro users I tend to be Adobe first and Apple second. We only buy Apple kit because it offers the best UI at the moment, and it's a UI that most people are familiar with.

If we're given the choice between Adobe on Apple or Adobe on PC we'll pick Apple 10/10. If we're given the choice between Adobe on PC or UnprovenAlternative TM on Apple, we'll pick Adobe on PC 10/10.

Photoshop is the best in its class - that is a FACT.

Illustrator is wiping the floor with Freehand at the moment - that is a FACT. Every die hard Freehand user I know has switched to Illustrator in the last year.

InDesign is superior to QuarkXPress in every way - that is a FACT - and its starting to gain momentum.

Adobe are also responsible for the two bedrock technologies that our industry is founded upon - Postscript and PDFs.

From my understanding of Core Video/Image, it's not really going to have an impact on they way that we use Adobe apps on a day to day basis. Sure it might make better use of the video cards and leverage a little more processing power out of the machine, but on a daily basis I'm more worried about DESIGNING and developing SOLUTIONS to clients needs.

Adobe apps are on the whole, reliable. I'm at a stage now where I can visualize pretty much anything that I can think up. It's almost becoming second nature.

If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of the "Creative Suite" I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe.

If Adobe announced that it was shelving Apple support, and moving to Windows, we'd all be up to speed on PCs within a month. I don't think we'd really look back to be honest...

Like I say, Adobe first, Apple second.

[Messiah]

And what the hell is going on with my G5?

The fans just decided to kick-in at full speed for a minute there...?

[rok]

hey, while we're wondering about adobe apps and their mac os x agnostic UI, why don't they obey the standard hide and minimize commands, or even the command-~ to swap between open windows?

that drives me nuts. even illustrator obeys command-~

[BuonRotto]

Adobe is creating their own UI, their own platform of tools. They barely make use of native technologies.

Frankly, I don't think a lot graphic designers have any idea of either what's happening or what's possible outside of Adobe's sphere. It's in Adobe's best interest to keep people dependent on Adobe stuff. Apple has many of the same underlying technologies (not most I don't think, but the big ones are there) working for all apps in OS X. Right now, Photoshop and other Adobe apps are doing redundant work that the OS does automatically and in the same way. Apple also has some advanced text features that Adobe hasn't tapped into. Of course, Apple's 2D engine has a lot of ties to Adobe's technology. The day Adobe starts using Apple tech for its own apps is the day Adobe starts tinkering with the open PDF specs, tinkering with their liberal policy regarding the .psd file format, etc. And obviously, there's a lot of technoloy and features that Adobe has that Apple has no equivalent of and no need for in their other apps at this point. It gets political for the tech that is shared.

Adobe's application UIs are clearly closer to Windows than Mac OS at this point, but I think many graphics people are unaware of that because they don't use much outside of Adobe's Creative suite and because they haven't used Windows much. In that context, everything else is exceptional. Adobe knows that.

The big, huge deal about the CoreImage library is that it does much of what Photoshop can do in real time, no tricky masking (Ok, not always that tricky ;) ) or anything. Think about that. I don't think it's a shot across the bow, but it is a wakup call to Adobe that someone, whether using Apple technology or their own, will do pretty much everything Photoshop does faster and with less interface "stuff" in the way of design. That level of technology was bound to come sooner or later, so nevermind who got there first. It's huge deal in terms of productivity and revenue too. It will be interesting to see if anyone else can make a real run at Adobe or if Adobe's monopoly will stymie advancement of this technology until it works for them. They can afford to work on such a thing at a leisurely pace, enough to keep competitors at bay. In all fairness, they've earned that advantage for the most part (along with others' screw-ups along the way).

Adobe has no interest in dependency on other platforms, nor do they have any interest in opening any Pandora's Box by doing so.

Besides, Adobe by far makes more revenue from PCs, nevermind that most pro firms still use Macs. As Messiah said (in a sort of zealotrous tone, but we're hear that from others too ;) ), the pros follow Adobe first, Apple second. I think Adobe is planning on dropping the Mac, at least hedging its bets. If they tie into it, it makes the transition away from Macs more difficult. If they do it, then development costs go up, and it speeds up the timeline when developing for Mac OS isn't worth the money.

While Adobe IMO holds back advancement of the interface by constantly lagging behind or ignoring the rest of the OS, it is the surest way to keep Mac OS development viable for as long as possible.

[Amorph]

Originally posted by Messiah
If Adobe announced that it was shelving Apple support, and moving to Windows, we'd all be up to speed on PCs within a month. I don't think we'd really look back to be honest...

That's the move they've been preparing you for. Get ready.

[johnq]

I'm a pro user too, nyah-nyah...

"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of ProTools I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Digidesign."

"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of Premiere I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe."

"If Apple announced that it was making its own web browser I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Microsoft."

Blah...

Apple can do it. Apple should do it. Apple will do it. Pros (and regular users if applicable) will use it.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by millhouse
adobe seems to be the flagship of developers for the mac, i know there are probably bigger ones but when you think of good mac software usually adobe comes to mind.
so here's my question.
why doesnt adobe adhere to the guidlines of a mac os x application and use sheets? everytime i save anything in an adobe app there is no sheet, just that intrusive dialog box which haults my work in everything else in that app.
i've never understood it and perhaps someone has a good explination as to why there are no sheets in an adobe app to this day.
It's because Windows doesn't have sheets, and Adobe doesn't do anything different between platforms.

[Gavriel]

Originally posted by Amorph
That's the move they've been preparing you for. Get ready.

Buy why? It's not like Adobe and Microsoft are the best of friends, are they? Do you foresee this happening because of the Apple/Adobe relationship or because of the cost of cross-platform support? You'd think it was in Adobe's best interest to maintain the Mac as a viable option to Windows. If for no other reason than competing against Microsoft on their own platform will surely kill you off. And Microsoft seem to want to compete with everyone... What's your and BuanRotto's reasoning behind this assertion?

[failedmathematician]

I've only been watching for about five years now, but Adobe is definitely moving in the Windows direction. From what I know, they have always rolled their own with respect to UI, and admirably they have led they way on a couple of occasions.

I say blame Apple for ceding most of their marketshare, and with it, eventually their mindshare. Fact of the matter is that for mid level applications, the Mac is becoming a very closed platform.

[BuonRotto]

One reason only for moving Adobe apps to Windows: money.

Money saved by not developing for two platforms. However similar, the two platform releases still need individual attention. By putting everyone into one OS platform, you can concentrate your resources. Adobe makes a lot more money from their Windows products, especially Acrobat but also from their consumer products, most of which aren't even available on Macs. While a majority a grpahic deign and advertising prods use Macs with their Adobe products, a lot more business professionals and hobbyists use PCs, and they make a lot more money from PCs. Adobe would like to concentrate their resources on developing for one platform, and naturally bring their pro Mac users along.

[Gavriel]

Do you think that Apple knows or suspects this?

So if this happens, what routes are there for Apple. Either develop their own Photoshop/Illustrator software, or enable others to do it more easily (Core*).

My hopes is for Apple to pick up the gauntlet and develop the software themselves. But how would they topple Adobes apps?

As far as I know, what Apple has done in the past when breaking in to a pro-software segment has been to simply purchase the current leader with all of its assets and release them under their own name. This happened in both video and audio, right? But this is another game completely. They can't afford to buy Adobe or any of its leading software. How would they compete?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by johnq
I'm a pro user too, nyah-nyah...

"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of ProTools I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Digidesign."

"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of Premiere I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe."

"If Apple announced that it was making its own web browser I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Microsoft."

Blah...

Apple can do it. Apple should do it. Apple will do it. Pros (and regular users if applicable) will use it.

I don't know much about anything outwith design for print, so I can't comment on that, but there is no way Apple would be able to move in to the print industry in the next 3-5 years.

No way.

If somebody who is trusted within the design industry (Adobe) can't get the industry to accept a product that is far superior (InDesign) to what everyone's currently using (QuarkXpress), then there's little chance on Apple being able to crack the market.

I'd love to see Apple produce an alternative (it can only be good for the market) - I just think that there's more chance of angels flying out my arse!

Pro users just want to switch their machine on (be it Mac or PC) and rattle through their job list as quickly as possible. A lot of the printers that we send work to are still working with Quark on OS 9, because at the end of the day it works perfectly well, and it's predictable.

Personally, at this point, I'd be more interested in an Adobe platform independent OS targeted specifically at designers, than an Apple alternative to the Creative Suite.

But hey, that's probably just me.

I've saved a lot of time today by using InDesign over Quark, which means I can get away on time and have a play on my mountain bike!

See you guys later!

:)

[BuonRotto]

The big difference between the video offering Apple made inroads with and the Adobe suite is that mid-range video was a relatively nascent market, whereas graphics is firmly entrenched. Apple's success with Logic is that they bought a well-established company but haven't disrupted the product or the team developing it much. So while audio was also a fairly entrenched market too, Apple simply bought into it rather than introducing another solution there. If Apple were to try muscling in on Photoshop or Quark, which are far more dominant in their respective markets than Logic was (and is) in its market, it would be really, really tough. Their best bet is to do what I think they're doing now: offer tech that maybe a third party can lead to success first. If that doesn't materialize, they would probably target the hobbyist/"prosumer" market by either going against Elements directly, or I would be willing to bet that they try to slip under Photoshop but over Elements, in the $300 range. I'm thinking an equivalent of Motion, modified for print/still graphics. They wouldn't bother competing with PS head to head, certainly not in the pro shops, but it's a potentially big opportunity for SOHO and hobbyists. If a product like that took off (remember, this is assuming other aveunes are exhausted), once that product is established, they might jockey for some foothold in the high end market. It's a pattern that I think is playing out with their current hardware and software offerings.

I should add that Apple and the rest of the industry doesn't see much growth in the print/graphics market either. Apple might be willing to cede the graphics market if it comes to that so long as video and audio can continue to grow and make up for whatever they lose in the pro graphics industry. While graphics is a significant part of Apple's business, they don't sell as much pro graphics workstations as you might think since so many shops hold onto setups they know work for ages. It's very slow turnover in the graphics field in hardware as well as software, and that may not be worth the effort to try to either protect this market or wrest more control over it if it doesn't contribute enough to your quarterly numbers. One of the reasons that Adobe is pushing business and consumer products so much is because their bread and butter graphics suite, while it provides consistent revenues, has had fairly stagnant sales for a while. While some of that has to do with a sort of topping off of features from version to version recently, it also has to do with the saturation of the mature graphics market. They made InDesign to snag the piece of that pie that they don't own of course, but growth for that company is based primarily on Acrobat, and to a lesser extent on getting consumer products into lots of homes. Businesses are primarily on PCs and it would be pointless to compete with Apple's iLife products on the Mac. So where does that leave you? Windows only, unless Linux makes more inroads and shows a consistent pattern of growth too.

[PS: enjoy the biking!]

[JLL]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Besides, Adobe by far makes more revenue from PCs, nevermind that most pro firms still use Macs.

That's mainly because of Acrobat. On the CS front Adobe still gets about 30% of their revenue from Macs.

Acrobat is their cash cow now since it's used a lot in enterprise.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
The big difference between the video offering Apple made inroads with and the Adobe suite is that mid-range video was a relatively nascent market, whereas graphics is firmly entrenched. Apple's success with Logic is that they bought a well-established company but haven't disrupted the product or the team developing it much. So while audio was also a fairly entrenched market too, Apple simply bought into it rather than introducing another solution there. If Apple were to try muscling in on Photoshop or Quark, which are far more dominant in their respective markets than Logic was (and is) in its market, it would be really, really tough. Their best bet is to do what I think they're doing now: offer tech that maybe a third party can lead to success first. If that doesn't materialize, they would probably target the hobbyist/"prosumer" market by either going against Elements directly, or I would be willing to bet that they try to slip under Photoshop but over Elements, in the $300 range. I'm thinking an equivalent of Motion, modified for print/still graphics. They wouldn't bother competing with PS head to head, certainly not in the pro shops, but it's a potentially big opportunity for SOHO and hobbyists. If a product like that took off (remember, this is assuming other aveunes are exhausted), once that product is established, they might jockey for some foothold in the high end market. It's a pattern that I think is playing out with their current hardware and software offerings.

I should add that Apple and the rest of the industry doesn't see much growth in the print/graphics market either. Apple might be willing to cede the graphics market if it comes to that so long as video and audio can continue to grow and make up for whatever they lose in the pro graphics industry. While graphics is a significant part of Apple's business, they don't sell as much pro graphics workstations as you might think since so many shops hold onto setups they know work for ages. It's very slow turnover in the graphics field in hardware as well as software, and that may not be worth the effort to try to either protect this market or wrest more control over it if it doesn't contribute enough to your quarterly numbers. One of the reasons that Adobe is pushing business and consumer products so much is because their bread and butter graphics suite, while it provides consistent revenues, has had fairly stagnant sales for a while. While some of that has to do with a sort of topping off of features from version to version recently, it also has to do with the saturation of the mature graphics market. They made InDesign to snag the piece of that pie that they don't own of course, but growth for that company is based primarily on Acrobat, and to a lesser extent on getting consumer products into lots of homes. Businesses are primarily on PCs and it would be pointless to compete with Apple's iLife products on the Mac. So where does that leave you? Windows only, unless Linux makes more inroads and shows a consistent pattern of growth too.

[PS: enjoy the biking!]

Very well put.

I totally agree that Apple might produce an iApp along the lines of Microsoft Publisher (not sure if that is still around). I can see that being a big success for them. But like you say, I don't see them trying to muscle in on Adobe in the pro market - it's just not worth it...

[Northgate]

Can Apple afford to buy Adobe?

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Northgate
Can Apple afford to buy Adobe?
I think they're about the same size of company.

[user23]

Originally posted by Amorph
That's the move they've been preparing you for. Get ready.

EH?!


Are you joking? I'd love to see a little more light shone on your statement, Amorph.

[user23]

Originally posted by Messiah
[B]I don't know much about anything outwith design for print, so I can't comment on that, but there is no way Apple would be able to move in to the print industry in the next 3-5 years.

No way.

If somebody who is trusted within the design industry (Adobe) can't get the industry to accept a product that is far superior (InDesign) to what everyone's currently using (QuarkXpress), then there's little chance on Apple being able to crack the market.

the major daily newspaper I worked for has bought into Creative Suite & Mac G5s. This represents a huge, huge leap of faith (and belief) for the company which owns the paper I work for. Clearly, they see the future.

btw: the corporation that owns my paper owns the vast majority of all print media in the US. What is good for my newspaper....will end up being used in many, many places across the U.S.

I have a hard time believing Adobe will drop the Mac market...now or ever...Unless, of course, apple runs their company into the ground..

[BuonRotto]

Well, I don't think Adobe is going to force the issue, but I don't think they want to get caught up a river without a paddle, to use a cliche. They're planning for eventualities, and it's more likely that Macs will become unviable sooner than Windows. I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.

[Gavriel]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.

So in essence, Adobe will try as little as possible to adapt its software to the system it is in. Which means that we can't really expect its titles to become much better OS X citizens and gain more Mac-feel. This reminds me of a thing Amorph wrote a while back, that Adobe had Photoshop still relying on its own memory protection code rather than to leave that task upon Apple and Microsoft that has this area covered in their respective OSes by now. I also recall him saying that that memory protection system took away considerable resources from the task at hand: image manipulation.

[Thorzdad]

Originally posted by Messiah
And what the hell is going on with my G5?

The fans just decided to kick-in at full speed for a minute there...?
It was those 5 laughing smilies you posted. Safari chokes on groups of animated gifs.

[PBG4 Dude]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Well, I don't think Adobe is going to force the issue, but I don't think they want to get caught up a river without a paddle, to use a cliche. They're planning for eventualities, and it's more likely that Macs will become unviable sooner than Windows. I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.

Way back a long time ago (1995 or so?) Adobe coded/supported Photoshop for SGI IRIX. I'm sure they still have that code to work with if they ever decide to create a Linux version.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by Gavriel
This reminds me of a thing Amorph wrote a while back, that Adobe had Photoshop still relying on its own memory protection code rather than to leave that task upon Apple and Microsoft that has this area covered in their respective OSes by now.

Adobe apps effectively triple-buffer all window content because the Mac OS double-buffers all windows automatically, and Adobe's platform-independent code base also double-buffers the windows. Windows (the OS) doesn't do its own buffering (that's the the eraser effect when processes are hung), so Adobe smartly added this to their code so their apps would work well on Windows, but it's superfluous on a Mac. That sort of redundancy is all over the Adobe code, and this is the second or thid iteration of OS X native Adobe apps in some cases. It's not efficient and it affects performance most definitely. Imagine if someone with the resources to hang in the game could produce something akin to Photoshop's features, with a good GUI, and OS X native without the redundancies of Adobe' model. Yeah, that product would be locked into the fate of the OS, but the performance would potentially blow PS away. And PS does a good job with the heavy lifting it's doing already!

[Thorzdad]

So, how many of you think that the big line in the sand, so to speak, will be the moment OSX goes fully 64-bit? Will Adobe spend the money to make 64-bit, OSX-only versions of Pshop, Illustrator, etc.? Or will that be the moment they cut further development for the Mac?

Or should we all start rooting for Miscrosoft to get that 64-bit version of Windows working so there might still be co-development for both platforms?

[BuonRotto]

Doesn't aDobe make some sort of G5 plug-in for Photoshop? Somehow, they manage to use some sort of plug-in structure for processor features like this, SSE, and such. (I assume it's not the same thing as the plug-in architecture for filters.) I'm out of my league on that one, for sure.

[Chucker]

WHY would Apple ever make a "64-bit-only" OS X? Don't you know 64-bit is overdoing it for most applications?

[johnq]

Originally posted by Chucker
WHY would Apple ever make a "64-bit-only" OS X? Don't you know 64-bit is overdoing it for most applications?

What do you mean? Shouldn't it be twice as fast as 32 bit?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

:lol: :D

[Chucker]

Originally posted by johnq
What do you mean? Shouldn't it be twice as fast as 32 bit?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

:lol: :D

http://www.alte-muehle-ziegenhain.de/images/bit1.jpg

More bits, more fun. :D

[ijerry]

Well, according to adobe's website (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/main.html)Adobe Systems generates annual revenues exceeding US $1 billion and is traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol ADBE.

Whereas, Apple (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/oct/13results.html)Revenue for the quarter was $2.35 billion

Therefore, I cannot say that they are the same size company, but rather Apple should be able to buy them out, but the fact remains that MS would most likely outbid Apple to keep that from happening, so what to do?

It is broke as it stands right now, but I believe Apple will find a way to get this moving in the right direction...If it were me, I would fund and have my people at Adobe to help make the changes to optimize for my OS technologies, then nobody really loses, but that is just me....:\

[4fx]

First of all, I would like to reemphasize the fact that Adobe is most certainly a cross platform company and they arent going to favor one OS over the other as far as features and interface are concerned (optimization is another thing).

Photoshop CS could have, should have, would have been an upgrade that virtually no user would do without. Sadly, the long yearned for Filter Layers capability was cut at some point in time, and I truely believe that the reason was performance. I would tax a system tramendously to have such a feature. Core Image would take care of the problem if it were tapped into and Apple made an offhand comment about that during WWDC. Hopefully when it happens, Adobe will take advantage of the technology, but there is no way they would include such a feature on the Mac if the Windows version didnt have it as well.

As far as interface is concerned, I really dont understant why anyone thinks Adobe is agressively moving toward a more Windows savy layout. Ive been using PS for going on 9 years now (since version 4), and I havent noticed a drastic change in the interface. Unless my memory decieves me, PS's interface has largely remained the same, save 2 exceptions. The first, is the addition of the horizontally oriented Options pallette, which I dont see as being PC centric in its function or look (yes, I do use PS for Windows on occasion and so I know the differences in the interface). The addition of the Browser is another story, and I do have to admit that its interface is rather PC centric.

I dont think this in anyway indicates that Adobe is looking to move away from the Mac platform as far as its CS applications are concerned. After Effects could be another story, who knows...

The notion that all Mac that use Adobe products would immediately rush headlong into purchasing PCs and upgrading their software if Adobe cut Mac support is simply absurd. It would give them one less reason to upgrade! The print industy is quite slow to move forward in purchasing hardware and software. It isnt uncommon to wait an extra version or two before upgrading. It would take Adobe several years to get its Mac user base to switch platforms, in the meantime loosing profits from an upgrade sales slump.

Honestly, unless somthing tragic happens to Apple, the primary Adobe applications are safe and sound on the Mac platform.

As far as sheets being used, I think it comes down to interface parity between the operating systems and even just within the Mac platform. How on earth would "Save for Web" work as a sheet? And if they cant impliment them there, I dont think they will use them for the normal Save and Save As functions either.

Just my 2¢ :)

[Thorzdad]

Originally posted by 4fx
First of all, I would like to reemphasize the fact that Adobe is most certainly a cross platform company and they arent going to favor one OS over the other as far as features and interface are concerned

That's not entirely true. There is, afterall, more to Adobe than Photoshop and Illustrator. Take, for instance, the Acrobat family of products as well as Adobe's Document Services suite of products. Both are heavily (and in the case of Document Services, entirely) Windows-oriented. The Acrobat family is especially galling considering that one of the big appeals of PDF is its cross-platform quality. I'm seeing PDF become more and more a workplace staple and the lack of a Mac version of many of these products can only hurt us, especially in the workplace.

Just an observation.

[Gavriel]

Not to mention the fact that in Photoshop CS - buttons displaying folders do so in *yellow*, rather than the traditional Mac OS-blue! If that's not a sign that Adobe is abandoning the Mac platform in favor of Windows, then I don't know what is!!

[4fx]

Originally posted by Thorzdad
That's not entirely true. There is, afterall, more to Adobe than Photoshop and Illustrator. Take, for instance, the Acrobat family of products as well as Adobe's Document Services suite of products. Both are heavily (and in the case of Document Services, entirely) Windows-oriented. The Acrobat family is especially galling considering that one of the big appeals of PDF is its cross-platform quality. I'm seeing PDF become more and more a workplace staple and the lack of a Mac version of many of these products can only hurt us, especially in the workplace.

Just an observation.

I was actually talking just about existing programs for the Mac, but I do see your point. I didnt realize just how many Acrobat oriented products there really were. Perhaps Im missing somthing, but I dont see why they need so many products in that area and why they havent consolidated their effforts into fewer products that do more. However, I think we need to remember that they are targeting enterprise level businesses, and Apple doesnt have a strong presence there, though it certainly wouldnt hurt to have the option.

As far as Acrobat itself is concerned, perhaps I just havent noticed any difference in features or interface (most of my Acrobat experience has been on the PC). I dont see the lack having Acrobat Elements a problem, since this functionality is built into OS X. If the next version of Windows supported direct PDF printing Im sure the program would get scrapped entirely.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Thorzdad
That's not entirely true. There is, afterall, more to Adobe than Photoshop and Illustrator. Take, for instance, the Acrobat family of products as well as Adobe's Document Services suite of products. Both are heavily (and in the case of Document Services, entirely) Windows-oriented. The Acrobat family is especially galling considering that one of the big appeals of PDF is its cross-platform quality. I'm seeing PDF become more and more a workplace staple and the lack of a Mac version of many of these products can only hurt us, especially in the workplace.

Just an observation.

Most Acrobat products are Windows only since there aren't many enterprise Mac OS X clients - yet ;)

Elements (which is basically built-in in Mac OS X) is only available in 1,000+ seats licenses.