or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe may not deliver native Intel Mac support until 2007
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe may not deliver native Intel Mac support until 2007

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
Adobe Systems on Wednesday said it has no plans to re-release its current applications as Universal binaries that can run natively on both Intel- and PowerPC-based systems, and instead will focus on delivering native support for Intel Macs along with the next major versions of its software.

"This applies to Adobe Creative Suite 2, Studio 8, as well as individual applications, such as Photoshop CS2, InDesign CS2, Acrobat 7.0 Professional, Dreamweaver 8, Flash Professional 8, and After Effects 7.0," the San Jose, Calif.-based software developer said in a statement. "Instead, we are focused on delivering the next versions of these products as Universal applications that will run natively on the new Intel-based Mac computers."

Unfortunately for consumers and professionals alike, this news, which was first reported on Macintosh news site MacNN, means Creative Suite applications, including Adobe's flagship Photoshop software, will not run natively on Intel Macs until a future release of Creative Suite.

Citing a policy of not commenting on future ship dates, the company would only point to its track-record of releasing significant upgrades to its creative professional applications every 18-24 months. Adobe Creative Suite 2.0, the current version of its professional applications suite, was released in April of 2005. This means the first version of the suite to natively support Apple's Intel Macs could be as many as 14 months away. A native version of Flash, which was last updated in August of 2005, could be even further out.

In defending its position, Adobe said that adapting its software to shifts in operating system platforms and processors requires substantial testing because compatibility issues can span across the entire functionality of an application.

"As we've refined our software development process over the years, we've generally found that the most effective way for us to support these types of changes is to incorporate this testing into our regular development cycle," the company said. "This enables us to advance our technology at the aggressive pace that our customers expect, while also adding support for significant new system configurations."

Adobe maintains that its approach towards developing Universal versions of its software is no different than when it began updating its Mac OS 9-based applications to run on Mac OS X.

"In the first 18-24 months after Mac OS X (10.0.0) shipped, we re-engineered a dozen or more applications to run natively on Mac OS X as part of the natural release cycles of those products," the company said. "This disciplined approach allowed us to ship reliable, feature-rich releases on a new platform that served our customers well."

In the meantime, Adobe said Creative Suite 2, Studio 8, the components of these suites, and After Effects 7.0 should continue to run under Apple's Rosetta emulation environment with the exception of Version Cue Workspace (Server).

The company said it will continue to support its products as usual, but may be unable to address installation or compatibility issues that arise from running under Rosetta.

"Rosetta should offer most existing applications a basic compatibility with Intel-based Mac hardware, although customers may encounter performance, compatibility, and other issues," Adobe said. "However, Adobe is not extensively testing and certifying our applications to run under Rosetta." Instead, the company is focusing on moving its software development to Apple's Xcode development environment to support Universal versions of the next major releases.

On the other hand, the company said it will be able to quickly release an Universal Binary version of its new Lightroom professional photography software because the application is currently in its beta stages and does not require as much testing as release-quality software.

"Because this is a beta and not yet a certified, shipping product, we have more freedom to release it quickly without the exhaustive testing required of production software," Adobe said. "Customers are encouraged to experiment with this beta version as a preview of the performance they can expect from future Universal releases of Adobe products."
post #2 of 81
I'm guessing they've gotten themselves into a bind with the Suite pricing and rather than do the extra work and introduce apps piecemeal they rather wait and release everything at once. For instance, I know I've read somewhere (accurate or not who knows I can't remember the source) that the latest version of illustrator was a rewrite using Apple's compilers, and if that's true, it should take considerably less effort to transition.

Note that LightRoom is the only Adobe app that has a direct competitor in the marketplace (besides maybe Quark, but, well, they're Quark).

In all fairness, though, they do have a huge code base to transition.
post #3 of 81
This is a very good reason for the PowerMac line to be the last hardware that get's the Intel transition. This is bad news for Pro users indeed.
post #4 of 81
After all these years, Quark finally catches a break. Let's see what they can do with it.

The Intel transition is coming right in the middle of the Adobe-Macromedia integration.
That may slow things considerably.

Apple will probably unveil the new Power Mac at WWDC in June or just after the summer.

For anyone who's ever dreamed of taking on Photoshop. Here's your one (and likely only) chance to make headway.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
"As we've refined our software development process over the years, we've generally found that the most effective way for us to support these types of changes is to incorporate this testing into our regular development cycle," the company said. "This enables us to advance our technology at the aggressive pace that our customers expect, while also adding support for significant new system configurations."

In other words, "we've found that the only way we can get most people to pay for the generally unsubstantial upgrades to our incredibly expensive software is by charging for updates required to bring compatibility with user's operating systems or hardware."
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
On the other hand, the company said it will be able to quickly release an Universal Binary version of its new Lightroom professional photography software because the application is currently in its beta stages and does not require as much testing as release-quality software.

Then why the fuck did Adobe just ship Adobe After Effects 7, which was most certainly in last alpha or early beta stages when Apple made their Intel Development Kits available last Spring. Oh yeah, because After Effects has no serious competitor. Lying rat bastards (Adobe, not AI, of course).
post #6 of 81
This is Horrible. Looks like I won't be upgrading for at least a year. I'm sure After Effects is pretty much unusable even in the basic tasks under rosetta. Adobe better hope Apple doesn't make Motion a complete replacement for After Effects in that time. I have a Dual 1.8 I bought about a year and a half ago and I'm sure I will be feeling the age real bad by 2007.
post #7 of 81
LIARS
post #8 of 81
anyone else been losing significant respect for adobe over the last few years?
post #9 of 81
This is a pretty positive announcement, from a systems administration point of view. Especially when you compare this "road map" to the one Quark was giving between versions 5 and 6.

At least now, I can pursue purchasing PowerMacs knowing that the next versions of CS will be Universal Binaries that will also run on them, giving plenty of time to start acquiring Intel-based pro Macs and test the exact same application and cycle in the new hardware in a planned fashion.

Looks like Adobe did Apple a favor to keep PPC pro sales going for a while.

Then again, everyone still using Quark 4 is probably stocking up on PPC pros due to lack of Classic support for future Intels. I am still amazed at just how many houses still use Quark with Classic or even OS 9 native to this day.
post #10 of 81
You know, it can't go unnoticed that Maxon released a free update to it's incredibly complicated Cinema 4D software just days ago. How incredibly absurd is it that Maxon was able to make Cinema 4D Universal in less than a year, and release it for free to its customers, when Adobe doesn't have a single Universal Application planned for another 8-14 months┬║, and they'll charge you for them!?!

┬║Nobody cares about Lightroom
post #11 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Then again, everyone still using Quark 4 is probably stocking up on PPC pros due to lack of Classic support for future Intels. I am still amazed at just how many houses still use Quark with Classic or even OS 9 native to this day.

Where I used to work, the customer was still using Oracle Forms for OS 9, but it came time to upgrade the PM's so we had to upgrade all of our software that was built for OS9 as well as upgrade the Oracle Forms.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
post #12 of 81
Okay Apple, feel free to come out with your Photoshop app now.

Adobe does not want to play ball.

Screw 'em.
post #13 of 81
So, Adobe is expecting users to run Photoshop on Rosetta the whole year of 2006? The demostration on SJ's keynote wasn't very promising. I bet it will discourage people to buy the Intel Mac, since Photoshop is one of the most important apps on Mac.
post #14 of 81
On second thought, maybe Apple enforced Adobe to do so, so that Apple could clean up the existing inventory of PowerPC products. It's quite frustrating when you can't get rid of the old products, especially when sales for these products are declining by the mean time.
post #15 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by mechengit
On second thought, maybe Apple enforced Adobe to do so, so that Apple could clean up the existing inventory of PowerPC products. It's quite frustrating when you can't get rid of the old products, especially when sales for these products are declining by the mean time.

Not much of a chance of that. Apples inventory is only about 4-5 weeks. Adobe is just trying to throw it's weight around. They don't realize it's more likely for them to get burned. That's what happens when the sales guys happen to work their way up to CEO and /or CFO.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #16 of 81
This isn't any surprise to me. And I don't blame Adobe at all for not updating current versions. The NEXT versions have already been in progress, so why waste time/money--maybe a lot--porting the outgoing version? Keep those resources on the new version.

And I'm glad they've announced at least a vague timetable and explanation--but I do NOT like that Director wasn't mentioned by name!

This delay, as expected, will unfortunately create a dilemma for some people. Nothing can prevent that, and the transition is a necessary one that will bring great things this year and next. But some things will help:

* Most buyers of new Macs now are replacing an old G4 system--and so even with Rosetta they'll still see performance close to what they're used to, or better.

* Pros can still buy G5s (or G4 laptops). I expect Apple will keep selling G5 PowerMacs for as long as demand dictates--even after Mac Pros (or whatever) are out. So people who need Photoshop horsepower need not be left out in the cold.

* If the past 18-24 month record is what we have to go on then "Photoshop could be as many as 14 months away" is the worst case. 8 months is the best case, which is around when Conroe and Merom Macs are likely. The truth will probably be somewhere in between. That's really not far off the "late 2006" we were already expecting.

I want native Flash, Director, Dreamweaver and Photoshop ASAP. But realistically, I'll have to stick with what I'm using now for a year. I can deal. If I couldn't I'd get a G5 tower.

(BTW, as has been restated again and again, Apple's not "early" with the MacBook Pro and iMac. The NEVER said the transition would start in June. They said it would start BY June.)
post #17 of 81
Apple created this problem, not Adobe. To be fair, Adobe does have a huge amount of work to do. I'm happy LightRoom in UB will be coming out soon. Aperture needs competition. But I'm not sure what pro photographers will do on the road when they need to really edit their photos. As long as the new macbook pro laptops run photoshop cs2 in emulation a lot faster than the last version of powerbook g4s we should be okay for awhile. Even the best PC laptops are not fast enough for crunching hundreds of 16 megapixel raw images on the road--you have to wait until you get to your fast desktop for that.

So we will have to keep our Powermac G5 quads until some speedy dual intel core duo desktops can run photoshop faster in emulation than on the G5 quads, something I'm pessimistic about for at least a year.
post #18 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by ptnyc2006
Apple created this problem, not Adobe.

IBM and Motorola created this problem, not Apple They don't want to be in the personal computer CPU business. Intel does.
post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
I have a Dual 1.8 I bought about a year and a half ago and I'm sure I will be feeling the age real bad by 2007.

I have a Dual 2.0 I bought when the G5s were first introduced and I feel its age now!
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #20 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
IBM and Motorola created this problem, not Apple They don't want to be in the personal computer CPU business. Intel does.

Nagromme, you are right. But the responsibility for not seeking a different CPU manufacturer finally rests with Apple. It was a good long-term decision to switch to Intel, but its this interim period which may make many creative pros anxious.

I hope Apple thinks seriously about customer loyalty during this transition. If it's going to be 9-15 months before UB CS3, Apple may be better off dropping Powermac G5 prices and/or doing one more marginal speed bump to keep us satisfied. (Why not a quad dual core G5 2.5 or at least a dual dual core 2.7?) Not being able to get our work done faster than a windows creative pro will create problems.
post #21 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by ptnyc2006
Apple created this problem, not Adobe.

This is so true. Apple caught a lot of pro app suppliers off guard by now saying they will have completed the transition to Intel by the end of 2006. When the Intel transition announcement was made, it looked like the transition would end late 2007, not late 2006. This would have given the likes of Adobe the time to fit it in to their usual development cycle. If more companies do what Adobe is doing, it will make the move to Intel more of a bumpy ride, but Apple is the one causing this.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
post #22 of 81
Adobe's discision makes Apple's transition to become awkward, especially this year. Those who often use professional software from Adobe will definitely not buy an Intel Mac, at least this year. This might hurt Apple very much.
post #23 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by wgauvin
This is so true. Apple caught a lot of pro app suppliers off guard by now saying they will have completed the transition to Intel by the end of 2006. When the Intel transition announcement was made, it looked like the transition would end late 2007, not late 2006. This would have given the likes of Adobe the time to fit it in to their usual development cycle. If more companies do what Adobe is doing, it will make the move to Intel more of a bumpy ride, but Apple is the one causing this.

When I heard the transition timeline, I immediately expected that Jobs had padded the transition time by a year to allow for unseen problems and the "beating expectations" effect.

Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the computing industry would know that Apple wasn't going to "Osbourne" their product line for 24 months.

If Adobe bet on Jobs not being able to pull it off in a year, they have only themselves to blame.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #24 of 81
Pros desperate to upgrade to the latest and greatest could always switch to Windows and use Photoshop there. Adobe doesn't care what OS people are using their software on.

Perhaps another alternative:
Once projects like Darwine get there, maybe running the Windows x86 Photoshop on Intel Macs will be faster than running the OSX PPC Photoshop on Intel Macs....
post #25 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Citing a policy of not commenting on future ship dates, the company would only point to its track-record of releasing significant upgrades to its creative professional applications every 18-24 months.

If memory serves me correctly, CS2 came out not very much longer after CS. Certainly not 18 months apart.
Not saying that Adobe will go native sooner than 2007, but they're just padding themselves some time. Trust me...if there's an upgrade (read $), they'll spit out UB versions sooner.

But perhaps Adobe should really focus on just getting their quality control back up to snuff. Latest versions of Illustrator are just downright buggy!
post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by satchmo
If memory serves me correctly, CS2 came out not very much longer after CS. Certainly not 18 months apart.
Not saying that Adobe will go native sooner than 2007, but they're just padding themselves some time. Trust me...if there's an upgrade (read $), they'll spit out UB versions sooner.

But perhaps Adobe should really focus on just getting their quality control back up to snuff. Latest versions of Illustrator are just downright buggy!

Perhaps apple should focus on quality control. Latest versions of OSX are downright buggy\
go with the flow
Reply
go with the flow
Reply
post #27 of 81
CS2 was announced in April 2005 and began shipping in May 2005.
CS was announced in September 2003 and shipped before the end of that year.

Adobe usually follows an average 18-month cycle. That would make November the target for CS3.

And with Quark almost ready with a Universal upgrade, believe me, there will be no delay.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #28 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by dillyo1001
anyone else been losing significant respect for adobe over the last few years?

That's the main reason I prefer Photoshop 7 over CS2. They have stopped inventing and started shooting themselves in the feet.

But then, I think I've done this rent before...
<SNIP>

I started eyeing the MacBook and while running Photoshop is not a requirement, it is a big plus. I don't want to get a computer that runs my everyday programs unnecessarily slow. Still, this Adobe announcement will have no effect on my purchasing decision.
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #29 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
Okay Apple, feel free to come out with your Photoshop app now.

Adobe does not want to play ball.

Screw 'em.

Presto! Changeo! We here at Apple who have two incredibly talented engineers give you,

TIFFany X Pro.

(For those that don't know the two Stanford grads who started CaffeineSoft and developed TIFFany through 3.0 release work at Apple. One is a major developer on Quartz and the other in various departments concerning EOF, CoreData, etc.)

Now this would be great for Steve to allow this to happen.

An up-to-date TIFFany that can be sold jointly with Aperture.
post #30 of 81
Hit reply, not edit.
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #31 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Presto! Changeo! We here at Apple who have two incredibly talented engineers give you,

TIFFany X Pro.

(For those that don't know the two Stanford grads who started CaffeineSoft and developed TIFFany through 3.0 release work at Apple. One is a major developer on Quartz and the other in various departments concerning EOF, CoreData, etc.)

Now this would be great for Steve to allow this to happen.

An up-to-date TIFFany that can be sold jointly with Aperture.

This is where I would categorically dismiss the idea that Steve would ever allow any app out of Cupertino to have a name as tacky as that.

But given that the Powerbook marquee has been traded for MacBook Pro, my faith has been shaken.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #32 of 81
Since their products are already cross platform, I'm surprised they can't do a univeral binary rather quickly. That is, all their graphics manipulation routines are likely already byte-order independent.
post #33 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by ascii
Since their products are already cross platform, I'm surprised they can't do a univeral binary rather quickly. That is, all their graphics manipulation routines are likely already byte-order independent.

Their products are cross platform because they were developed using CodeWarrior. CodeWarrior is now owned by Freescale and their now more interested in embedded processors than either Macs or Windows.
post #34 of 81
I tend towards giving Adobe, (omg) Microsoft, and the other old school code warrior/carbon developers a break. In the space of 5 years Apple has created two huge transitions for developers.

For those that don't know, code warrior was the app to code mac apps prior to os x. as far as i know, apple had no public IDE. certainly when xCode was released, it was a work in progress. I was just learning cocoa at the time, and it was frustrating how much things changed in xCode quickly. Any book was quickly out of date. And remember, the old school developers were the ones who balked at the original cocoa only os x environment. Carbon was created to satisfy these old and important customers. In Apple's defense, they stressed the advantages of cocoa and seemed to be trying to guide developers towards that. However, OS X was an unknown OS at the time and the biggies thought better safe than sorry, and took the easy route by sticking with code warrior and carbon.

Now certainly no one expected this second major transition this quickly. I think it is asking a lot of the big houses. Remember, these are not one little guy cocoa apps (that rock), these are huge code bases often times with cross platform frameworks. To transition to an entirely new IDE, as well as update their carbon code, is an enormous task. Remember at WWDC when Steve said Cocoa developers could simply click a button, and carbon developers who used xCode would have a little more work? Well what he didn't say is that if you are a carbon developer on code warrior, then you are f*cked by this announcement.

So before we talk about how crappy Adobe is, remember the probelms above, compounded by integrating two entirely separate code basses from Macromedia and Adobe.

It is so easy to complain, but we should count our lucky stars that these transitions have gone relatively smoothly. It will be painful up top for these old school developers. But think about it, by forcing their developers to use xCode to move forward (since CW is kaput), Apple now has complete processor indepence. If they ever want to add any other supported processors, their own tools will make it a no brainer for developers.

Or at least that's my understanding..
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #35 of 81
http://www.shawcomputing.net/resourc...shots/ns40.jpg



http://www.shawcomputing.net/resourc...tiffany2-b.jpg


Apple has the resources to make a Photoshop Killer. When Adobe saw a preview of TIFFany 3 at WWDC 97 they quickly brought several top engineers to ask about how this and that are done. Some interesting parts of TIFFany have been attempted in Photoshop.

One of my favorite strengths of TIFFany is how layers can have an independent bit depth. One layer may be at 32bit, another at 2bit grayscale, so on and so forth.
post #36 of 81
Seems to me like Apple's policy of surprising people with their announcements is what has caused some of this. It's great showmanship but this sort of planning requires early advice. Apple won't be giving away their secrets until SJ is ready to do it on stage. That means that software companies have to wait and act once they hear like the consumer.

Doing the introduction of the new iMac and MacBook Pro the way they did was always going to look impressive on Apple's part but was going to be a major headache for companies like Adobe. I'm not a professional programmer but I've done a bit during my degree. I've played with most of the CS Suite and I can't even begin to imagine the task that Adobe face getting apps like Photoshop and Premiere Pro into UB (and not buggy at first release). Also, couple that with taking on Macromedia and integrating their staff and assets into the company. It's a logistical nightmare!

Perhaps Apple are planning to attempt to shove Adobe's products aside (or at least nibble away at their lead) and the surprise announcements are a good way of doing this. From what I've seen Aperture is very sweet (maybe I just believe the advertising) and no wonder Adobe and getting Lightroom out there ASAP.

IMHO, Adobe can't be blamed for this. Apple were gearing towards this transition since OS X started development, Adobe didn't know until last year! It's a bit of a head start. Could all be another Steve Jobs master plan for world domination!
post #37 of 81
Adobe have certainly gone down hill in my books and are in danger of adopting the role 'Quark' had during the Mac OS X migration (i.e. LAST).

This is however on top of two other major failings by Adobe (from a Mac perspective).

1. Acrobat on a Mac does not provide full support for PDF forms (submitting electronically). Also I have read that Acrobat on a Mac does not yet have support for the new 3D PDF standard. This breaks the whole platform independent nature of PDFs.

[Regarding electronic forms, Adobe should work with FileMaker so that forms can be submitted to/from FileMaker, this would be hugely beneficial as the PC system is way too complicated and as indicated above DOES NOT WORK WITH MACS.]

2. There is a major bug in Creative Suite 2 (and Acrobat 7) to do with using Network Login accounts (this bug did not exist in CS1 & Acrobat 6). Adobe have known about this for many months and Acrobat at least has had FIVE updates in that time and they STILL have not fixed it. It looks increasingly likely that it will NEVER be fixed in Creative Suite 2 (or Acrobat 7) and one would therefore have to PAY for CS3 or Acrobat 8 ASSUMING IT IS FIXED THEN!
post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by ibuzz
Perhaps apple should focus on quality control. Latest versions of OSX are downright buggy\

Amen ... :-(

Managed to lock up the OS yesterday when I started up Dashboard. Does it run in the kernel or something?

Couple of things.

Do folk here have any idea how complex Adobe product suite is? Both Photoshop and MSOffice almost qualify as operating systems in their own right. That's a lot of code to convert and test. Yes, they could rewrite it in scratch, but then you've got about three years of bugs to get it back up to the same level. As 'bloated' as some folk (many who have never seen it) think the Adobe code base is, it's tested and for the most part, it works. They would be daft to throw it away.

And when folk complain about bloat, how come they don't whinge about universal binaries? At least half the code in Adobe's packages aren't just sitting there doing nothing!

Apple shifts to PowerPC. Adobe sticks with 'em.
Apple shifts to MacOSX. Adobe sticks with 'em.
Apple shifts to Intel. Adobe sticks with 'em.

I don't see any question of support here. Yes, it takes a while, but as I said; Photoshop is a big package with plug-ins that need to go across as well. What they're doing is trying to make the best out of what is essentially Apple's problem. Can't see why Adobe should foot the bill for Apple's decision to shift.

Oh, and it's not IBM/Motorola's fault either. Apple didn't want to foot the bill for PPC development (fair enough - if they can get a standard chip that's cheaper, then they should), IBM coughing up for it would be a little unfair on their other customers who do pay.
post #39 of 81
Look, CS3 was never going to happen until Windows Vista came out anyhow (Q4 2006 or later). No way Adobe ever releases major software and suites without having both OS versions ready. With Vista that close and such a major part of the market share, Adobe will develop CS3 for both OSes. So to be shocked that CS3 won't see the light of day until 2007 is just not being aware of the obvious.

Then it gets down to being reasonable about this whole matter. I have no problems w/ my current mix of CS1 & CS2; they work and so do I because of it. If you need a Mac get a Power Mac now and quit wasting time on waiting for a MacTel. As past models show, it's best to give any new Apple model at least one iteration to work out the bugs. Plus by that time Leopard will be out; it will better optimized for MacTel computers and will probably enhance the overall performance and value on the new computers.

I just think as Apple users we need to really focus on 2007 and look to 2006 as whether we have immediate or long term needs in our choice.
post #40 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
I'm guessing they've gotten themselves into a bind with the Suite pricing and rather than do the extra work and introduce apps piecemeal they rather wait and release everything at once. For instance, I know I've read somewhere (accurate or not who knows I can't remember the source) that the latest version of illustrator was a rewrite using Apple's compilers, and if that's true, it should take considerably less effort to transition.

Illustrator was ported to Xcode in May last year, but since it was a post CS2 version they can't just release it until CS3 is finished.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe may not deliver native Intel Mac support until 2007