or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Universal Binaries on the Way
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe Universal Binaries on the Way

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
Adobe Universal Binaries on the Way
Authored by Aaron Freedman at 1:12 PM
Category | Software
Despite the fact that Adobe could easily be the largest company besides Microsoft not yet to roll out Universal versions of their software, they're still working on it according to an interview with Adobe Photoshop Product Manager John Nack by Inside Mac Radio.

Nack: "We recognize that to really address the way the market's been changing around digital photography it wasn't going to be good enough to just keep doing incremental additions to our existing code. What we really need is to start with a fresh slate. So in the case of Lightroom, because they did that, it's been a lot quicker for them to move to Mactel.
With some of the more mature apps, like Photoshop, Illustrator, it's a really big project, and there's a lot of work to move the code from Code Warrior over into Xcode, get that compiling, and then get that compiling on Mactel. So it's something where it's a long process. I wish we could do it faster. But Apple's been really great in supporting that. There've been Apple folks on site all the time over at Adobe answering questions, bouncing ideas back and forth. . . Both companies really want to see this happen, just like users do. We'll have it out as soon as we can, with the obvious qualifier that we want to right. We don't want to just rush it out there and have it not work well. So it'll take some time, but we're definitely working closely on it.

As we work with Apple we want to make sure that our applications keep evolving and taking really good advantage of all the new innovations they've got. They came out with the dual processor, dual core G5's. They're making some really great changes around the graphics architecture, like with the new MacBook--much faster memory systems with their GPU. And so I think that this evolution will help us stay really current and take good advantage of that. And of course every time a new system comes out one of the key benchmarks is how fast does it run Photoshop. And so it's in everybody's interest to make sure that our apps really shine on the new boxes."
zenga
Reply
zenga
Reply
post #2 of 68
Piss on Adobe. They've had 9 years to move their crap to Cocoa aware APIs and get off Codewarrior. Pathetic. I wonder how much of their code will be using Qt Frameworks? For sure they've made it clear they don't want to go to Cocoa.

Either Adobe bites the bullet or will soon see their applications falling farther behind.

Trolltech's not interested in catering to Adobe and making it a fortune.
post #3 of 68
I sometimes want to criticise Adobe too but in all fairness, Apple have made some pretty major changes in their products over the past 6 years. First the change to a unix-based machine and now to a new architecture.

It's not just a case of why don't they hurry up and change the code. I'm sure they don't want to alienate their old user bases. So, they'd have to maintain 3 builds - OS 9, OS X and OS X Intel.

Changing IDE for such a huge product isn't trivial either. XCode still isn't as fast as Codewarrior and a C/C++ codebase of about 300,000 lines of code can take half an hour to compile on a fast G4. I would reckon PS might have over 1,000,000 lines of code.

It's also the complexity of the code. I'm willing to bet PS is one of the most highly optimized apps around with quite a few parts written in altivec code. That doesn't compile for Intel architectures.

I don't think Adobe are just being a nuisance. I imagine they know more than anyone that they would make a decent amount of cash from Mactel purchases and they will be trying hard to get products ready. But this is a tough time with the upcoming Vista too.
post #4 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
I sometimes want to criticise Adobe too but in all fairness, Apple have made some pretty major changes in their products over the past 6 years. First the change to a unix-based machine and now to a new architecture.

It's not just a case of why don't they hurry up and change the code. I'm sure they don't want to alienate their old user bases. So, they'd have to maintain 3 builds - OS 9, OS X and OS X Intel.

Changing IDE for such a huge product isn't trivial either. XCode still isn't as fast as Codewarrior and a C/C++ codebase of about 300,000 lines of code can take half an hour to compile on a fast G4. I would reckon PS might have over 1,000,000 lines of code.

It's also the complexity of the code. I'm willing to bet PS is one of the most highly optimized apps around with quite a few parts written in altivec code. That doesn't compile for Intel architectures.

I don't think Adobe are just being a nuisance. I imagine they know more than anyone that they would make a decent amount of cash from Mactel purchases and they will be trying hard to get products ready. But this is a tough time with the upcoming Vista too.

Horseshit. Apple has made clear to *everyone* that the future is Cocoa. Had Adobe heeded the warning 5 years ago, they'd have their Xcode code ready to compile on x86 chips 8 months ago.

It's not trivial to do all this, we know this...but choosing to lug around a 16 year old code base around and planning another 10 years around it is extremely stupid.

If apps don't follow OS developments and work WITH IT, they become a separate platform with their own idiosyncrasies that have nothing to do with the platform. You might as well be running Photoshop as your OS then because who the fuck cares about the OS underneath it.

If Adobe wants to play that game, they should just make their suite a full blown OS and see where it takes them.

Every year they keep adding to their crusty old code base will make it harder for them to wipe the slate clean and rewrite their app...eventually, it'll be impossible for Adobe to make the necessary changes to run on modern OSes because Adobe's apps will have a shitload of legacy API code.

I'm sorry but if Adobe doesn't do something quick, they'll never be able to keep up with MS and Apple OS development. I hope Metro murders Adobe in its sleep. I hope a Photoshop Mac competitor is in the works by someone out there. It won't take much to tip the scale. Write an app with CoreImage...throw in plugin support...build a community around your product. In no time, this app will have lots of plugins and every capability Photoshop has. 4-5 years down the road, this app will probably supplant Photoshop on Mac.

Adobe had 7 years to *start* porting Photoshop to Xcode. They could have done this in parallel with the Metroworks code. They could have worked the bugs out of Xcode during those 7 years with Apple. Once they were satisfied with the performance of gcc, they would already have the code ready to compile.

Fuck'em...7 years to port to Xcode and they've only begun a few months ago.

Adobe doesn't care about you. In fact, Adobe hates you. They'll take your money and laugh all the way to the bank. They'll keep pushing their loyal fan base around as long as this fan base is dumb enough to take it.
post #5 of 68
Knowing Adobe, it doesn't surprise that it'll take ages to see the Macintel versions of Photoshop. Especially true that they'll wair for a new version so they can charge you and arm and a leg for the privilege.

That said, I'd expect Apple to improve and add hooks to Rosetta to help PowerPC Photoshop run on the intel boxes. There's probably some other laggard "pro" apps out there and Apple will do its best to get those apps running smoothley for their Pro customers.
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 #6 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It's not trivial to do all this, we know this...but choosing to lug around a 16 year old code base around and planning another 10 years around it is extremely stupid.

What the fuck is BSD/UNIX, and GNU-Linux? what the fuck is OSX (see open step, see nextstep), they are all spinoffs clones or variants of the Bell Labs UNIX large scale computer opperating system what is the forthcoming windows vista, and the current desktop king (like it or not), XP, just the reved versions of NT 3.5


In many cases, old code is proven code, when you ajust levels in Photoshop, you KNOW that it works the way it appears to, it has to, that kind of reliability is crucial for the pros that use it, you dont get that by fiddling with every wiz-bang-doo-dad along the way untill it becomes a proven bedrock technology.

With a pakage like adobe CS, and the expectations that people have, expecting a 6-month turn around is pretty nuts...they found out about the intel thing the same time we all did
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #7 of 68
Quote:
It's not trivial to do all this, we know this...but choosing to lug around a 16 year old code base around and planning another 10 years around it is extremely stupid.

The OS you run is at least 30 years old.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #8 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Fuck'em...7 years to port to Xcode and they've only begun a few months ago.

Before the intel switch, what was the advantage of using the Apple IDE when you have millions of lines in Code warrior, as far as adobe knew, code warior was stil good, no one knew the intel switch was coming, no one wanted to beleiv it anyway. When folks mentioned that the IBM G5 was the last gasp of a dying platform, no one seemed to agree except the Apple engeneers before last July...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #9 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
In many cases, old code is proven code, when you ajust levels in Photoshop, you KNOW that it works the way it appears to, it has to, that kind of reliability is crucial for the pros that use it, you dont get that by fiddling with every wiz-bang-doo-dad along the way untill it becomes a proven bedrock technology.

With a pakage like adobe CS, and the expectations that people have, expecting a 6-month turn around is pretty nuts...they found out about the intel thing the same time we all did

Well, Photoshop is not far from falling behind, as it was mentioned, the App simply isn't ready for the digital camera workflow revolution.

They may have found out about Intel the same time we did, but Apple has been evangalizing Xcode for more than 5 years now.

There is no surprise that Adobe is just full of fuckups - I use their shit bloated Creative Suite everyday. Like taking 6 years to stop illustrator from "quitting unexpectidly", peice of shit PDF code which always has problems after sending it to the printers, that peice of garbage they call Bridge.

Hey, Adobe - don't even bother porting your shit applications, 'cause they just aren't worth the effort.
post #10 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
The OS you run is at least 30 years old.

The basic concepts are the same, but it's been tweaked, built upon, optimized, and rewritten quite a few times since Bell Labs had the bright idea.
post #11 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, Photoshop is not far from falling behind, the App simply isn't ready for the digital camera workflow revolution.

I would like you to show me an app that is... Everything I have seen so far has so many missing features that I dont even bother. I think Apple is headed in the right direction with Aperature, but there is much to be done before I am satisfied with a workflow that works for me.


Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
There is no surprise that Adobe is just full of fuckups - I use their shit bloated Creative Suite everyday. Like taking 6 years to stop illustrator from "quitting unexpectidly", peice of shit PDF code which always has problems after sending it to the printers, that peice of garbage they call Bridge.

Hey, Adobe - don't even bother porting your shit applications, 'cause they just aren't worth the effort.

And what would you propose using instead? Aperature? GIMP? Xpress? Metro(shudder)? Corel Draw? Corel Paint?

I am open to new and better options. But if those options dont give me a better workflow, more powerful tools, more inntuitive interface, more reliable delivery, etc. then dont talk to me about how Adobe is worthless.

Lets face reality. Unfortunate as it is, Adobe is the only real answer at the moment (Xpress 7 does look promising). We need a true competitor to up the stakes. Until then, Im sticking with what gets the job done.
post #12 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
They may have found out about Intel the same time we did, but Apple has been evangalizing Xcode for more than 5 years now.

Did you miss the point of my post? Adobe had no incentive to switch IDEs when the binaries generated from Codewarrior worked just fine. Business only spends money when one of two conditions can be proven, either mid-to-long term cost cutting or increasing or sustaining revinue, untill six months ago, xcode had little to no claim at either.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #13 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx
Xpress 7 does look promising

As a replacement for Photoshop? Or InDesign?
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by fahlman
As a replacement for Photoshop? Or InDesign?

I realized we have digressed from the original topic, but yes I was referring to InDesign (though personally, I hate Xpress 6.5 with a passion when I have to use it every so often).

And if you think Adobe is bad, just remember what Quark put us through a few years back. I really thought they were doomed until their new management headed them in a new and better direction. And now it looks like we will get a Universal Xpress before we get a Universal InDesign...
post #15 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Did you miss the point of my post? Adobe had no incentive to switch IDEs when the binaries generated from Codewarrior worked just fine. Business only spends money when one of two conditions can be proven, either mid-to-long term cost cutting or increasing or sustaining revinue, untill six months ago, xcode had little to no claim at either.

I think you are missing the point. If you are CEO of a company like Adobe, and you need immediate incentives in order to make business decisions, then it's time to get out of the game.
post #16 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx
I would like you to show me an app that is... Everything I have seen so far has so many missing features that I dont even bother. I think Apple is headed in the right direction with Aperature, but there is much to be done before I am satisfied with a workflow that works for me.

I'm not saying everyone is going to switch from Photoshop, I just said that it is falling behind. Aperture is at version >>1.1<< and by at least on review, already produces better colour from raw files than Photoshop.

It is not going to take much to knock Photoshop off it's horse, Photoshop isn't Quark.

For the majority of users, Aperture just needs Curves, Layers, Filters, and a Handfull of other tools to be an adequate replacement for Photoshop.
post #17 of 68
Adobe Creative Suite will cost $50,000 per license to help offset the cost of the relatavistic starcruiser Adobe had to rent to get an Intel Binary coded within the millenium.
post #18 of 68
I can't fault Adobe too much on this, folks. They were in the same position that anyone else is about anything else that will eventually have to change over to something else: "We'll get to it later." If your feet aren't being held to the fire because of a looming deadline, you're less likely to care too much about it at the time. Adobe probably knew that they needed to move over to XCode, but also had some other projects on their plate that took higher priority.

Hindsight is 20/20. If they'd known then what they know now, we might have Universal Photoshop much sooner. If we knew hijackers were going to use 757s as missles, we might have had better national security at the time. It's a universal (pardon the pun) truth.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #19 of 68
why are we even stressing about universal creative suite? there's no intel processor available right now that would make an intel powermac faster than a quad g5. it seems like most of the people bitching about creative suite not being universal aren't people who make a living from using it.

it's not like this was a huge surprise to anyone in graphic design or photography. i'm sure we've all bought accordingly. i personally bought the fastest portable and fastest tower powerpc model for just this reason. i can wait out the first generation of intel macs or wait to see if the speed improvements and reliability warrant buying one.

i wouldn't want to rely on the first version of both an intel mac AND ub creative suite to put food on my table.
post #20 of 68
Aperture 3.0 will definitely be an interesting piece of software.

With regard to Photoshop, it's a complex piece of software which is why no-one's been able to replicate it on the platform.

Adobe uses their own imaging technology to keep the software crossplatform, which is why it's bloated.

The only software that begins to tackle OS X-native imaging is Stone Design's iMaginator.

The problem there is that as MacWorld has said, Stone has never really understood how to make an interface that's compelling to Pros.

I'm not sure why no-one's picked up on TIFFany's legacy.

Personally, I think Quark should make an image editor to give away free with the purchase of Xpress and buy SoftPress' Freeway to complete their own Creative Suite.
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 #21 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
What the fuck is BSD/UNIX, and GNU-Linux? what the fuck is OSX (see open step, see nextstep), they are all spinoffs clones or variants of the Bell Labs UNIX large scale computer opperating system what is the forthcoming windows vista, and the current desktop king (like it or not), XP, just the reved versions of NT 3.5


In many cases, old code is proven code, when you ajust levels in Photoshop, you KNOW that it works the way it appears to, it has to, that kind of reliability is crucial for the pros that use it, you dont get that by fiddling with every wiz-bang-doo-dad along the way untill it becomes a proven bedrock technology.

With a pakage like adobe CS, and the expectations that people have, expecting a 6-month turn around is pretty nuts...they found out about the intel thing the same time we all did

OSes are a different breed, my friend. You can't compare an OS to an app because the OS provides the APIs that apps should adopt. If you stick with the old APIs, you're not fully utilizing the potential being offered. If you don't use the APIs provided to you, why bother writing for a specific OS?

Because Adobe refuses to use new APIs, it's a platform on its own...it's its own OS. That's bad. Having an OS over and OS just doesn't work.

Adobe should just start selling AdobeOS boxes because, right now, it's a lousy System 7 app with an Aqua makeover. It doesn't integrate with OS X...at all.
post #22 of 68
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 #23 of 68
I don't understand this comment:

Quote:
and there's a lot of work to move the code from Code Warrior over into Xcode, get that compiling, and then get that compiling on Mactel. So it's something where it's a long process.

Code Warrior to Xcode could be a long process but compiling on Mactel from Xcode? Isn't that Xcode is made for?

Quote:
It's also the complexity of the code. I'm willing to bet PS is one of the most highly optimized apps around with quite a few parts written in altivec code. That doesn't compile for Intel architectures.

Sure it does. Apple has a library for this which will use altivec or the equivilent Intel vector instructions. Did Adobe use it? Probbally not. Also don't forget that there is an Intel version of PS and these optimizations probbally deal with code not tied to a specific OS. I personally think one problem is crappy programming pratices.
post #24 of 68
ok, so now that Adobe are aiming for a year-end CS3 launch (with a pinch of salt) should I cancel the request for a G5 Quad loaded with 4GB RAM? Things like this drive me up the wall. I want a new machine, I want the speed that comes with Universal CS3 & Intel, but I'm not convinced I won't be throwing my new Powermac (or whatever it's called at that stage) out the window 'cos of bugs that need rev2 to iron out...
never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
Reply
never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
Reply
post #25 of 68
i wouldn't bet on cs3 coming out this year. besides, even if it were to come out at the end of the year, would you want to do mission-critical work on the first universal binary version of creative suite? go ahead and buy the quad i say. of course, i have a quad already, so i guess i'm biased.
post #26 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Code Warrior to Xcode could be a long process but compiling on Mactel from Xcode? Isn't that Xcode is made for?

Bugs still pop up and it needs to go through QA. For example when Blizzard brought WoW across they got it compiling early but when they launched it there was an almost immediate bug. They then need to locate and fix that.

Edit: Just expanded now that I have time.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #27 of 68
I want to repeat this because I think it's unacceptable behavior from a huge company like Adobe:

Why the fuck didn't they start porting to Xcode in parallel with the CodeWarrior version 5 years ago when Apple was telling everyone to move to Xcode?

They could have continued shipping the CodeWarrior compiled Photoshop until the day they absolutely had to switch to Xcode. They wouldn't be stuck in the position of porting it to Xcode in 12 months.

Someone at Adobe is an idiot and deserves to lose his job. Who is it? I invite the good folks at Adobe to ponder and reflect on who screwed up. And I use the term 'good' lightly.
post #28 of 68
I would even prefer this scenario: Remember when Apple moved from 680X0 processors to the PPC platform and Adobe started off by releasing a plugin(s) that were compiled for PPC even though the actual application was still in the 680X0 code base?
Why didn't Adobe start with that little step in anticipation of Apple's Intel move? Did they think Apple wouldn't go through with it and on April 1 say it was a big joke? Lame.
post #29 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider

Why didn't Adobe start with that little step in anticipation of Apple's Intel move? Did they think Apple wouldn't go through with it and on April 1 say it was a big joke? Lame.

Maybe they had plans to drop their OSX products but then changed(or had it changed) their minds at the last minute.
post #30 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Maybe they had plans to drop their OSX products but then changed(or had it changed) their minds at the last minute.

Yeah, thay had plans to drop 50% of their customer base.
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I would even prefer this scenario: Remember when Apple moved from 680X0 processors to the PPC platform and Adobe started off by releasing a plugin(s) that were compiled for PPC even though the actual application was still in the 680X0 code base?
Why didn't Adobe start with that little step in anticipation of Apple's Intel move? Did they think Apple wouldn't go through with it and on April 1 say it was a big joke? Lame.

IIRC, the entire application has run native or in Rosetta. No mixed code.
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
post #32 of 68
I think we'll see CS 3 by end of the year.

Luckily for us, Apple released Aperture. While not intended to be a Photoshop killer at all, it was a strong shot across Adobe's bow.

After seeing what Apple was able to do to them in the video space, they are not going to risk pissing off Jobs and have an Photoshop killer come from Apple.
post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
I'm not saying everyone is going to switch from Photoshop, I just said that it is falling behind. Aperture is at version >>1.1<< and by at least on review, already produces better colour from raw files than Photoshop.

That's pretty much irrelevant as most pro photographers who use Photoshop for RAW conversion will do a custom color calibration yielding the best possible results for their camera(s).


Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
For the majority of users, Aperture just needs Curves, Layers, Filters, and a Handfull of other tools to be an adequate replacement for Photoshop.

Maybe for novice users but for Pros and serious amateurs, Aperture could only be thought of as a replacement for Bridge and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). Aperture doesn't include anywhere near the funcionality of Photoshop and probably never will. How about advanced sharpening? What about blending multiple photos for high dynamic range subjects? What if I need advanced noise reduction? What about the advanced layer capabilities in Photoshop? How would I make a multiple exposure image like this: http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/34244176
with Aperture? I guess my point is that Aperture is a developer, not an editor. It's but one part of what is often a multi-step process.
post #34 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Daffy_Duck
That's pretty much irrelevant as most pro photographers who use Photoshop for RAW conversion will do a custom color calibration yielding the best possible results for their camera(s).

What are you talking about? Your going to use custom calibration no matter what Raw converter you use. Aperture still renders color better regardless.


Quote:
Maybe for novice users but for Pros and serious amateurs, Aperture could only be thought of as a replacement for Bridge and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW).

It's at version >>>>>>>> 1.1 <<<<<<<<<


Quote:
Aperture doesn't include anywhere near the funcionality of Photoshop and probably never will. How about advanced sharpening?

Photoshop doesn't even offer advanced sharpening - you have to buy a plugin for that.

Quote:
What about blending multiple photos for high dynamic range subjects? What if I need advanced noise reduction? What about the advanced layer capabilities in Photoshop? How would I make a multiple exposure image like this: http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/34244176
with Aperture? I guess my point is that Aperture is a developer, not an editor. It's but one part of what is often a multi-step process. [/B]

Aperture just needs layers, alpha channels, a few filters, a pen tool, lasso - and that's it - game over Adobe.

Can or Will Apple implement these in Aperture? Who knows. I'll tell you one thing though - image editing is one of a few creative areas Apple isn't in right now, and the day they decide to compete in this area, they will own it just like they have done with every other creative app they've made.
post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by BWhaler
I think we'll see CS 3 by end of the year.

Luckily for us, Apple released Aperture. While not intended to be a Photoshop killer at all, it was a strong shot across Adobe's bow.

After seeing what Apple was able to do to them in the video space, they are not going to risk pissing off Jobs and have an Photoshop killer come from Apple.

Maybe you're right. Right now Adobe has Apple by the balls. By all indications, conroe will be ready to roll by this fall. If so new Power Macs could be introduced. Who will buy them without univerasl PS? People who use FCP can jump on in and get an intel mac but what about PS users? Every review of intel Macs mention that PS run under rosetta is unworkable. Pretty much the only app not workable under rosetta. When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.
post #36 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Maybe you're right. Right now Adobe has Apple by the balls. By all indications, conroe will be ready to roll by this fall. If so new Power Macs could be introduced. Who will buy them without univerasl PS? People who use FCP can jump on in and get an intel mac but what about PS users? Every review of intel Macs mention that PS run under rosetta is unworkable. Pretty much the only app not workable under rosetta. When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.

And Adobe knows Apple would be under tremendous pressure to fill that void.

The more I think about it, the more I believe PS will be demoed at WWDC, with an announced delivery date between Oct and Dec 2005.
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 #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.

And all be it in a much smaller market, also a day for Aperture to gain marketshare on PS.
2x2.7 PowerMac - 1.25 Powerbook - 10.4 Tiger - '65 Mustang
Reply
2x2.7 PowerMac - 1.25 Powerbook - 10.4 Tiger - '65 Mustang
Reply
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
What are you talking about? Your going to use custom calibration no matter what Raw converter you use. Aperture still renders color better regardless.


You don't understand. This: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/maccol.html

is a MacBeth color chart. Take a picture of it with 2 cameras and both will render each square in a different way. It is possible to take a photo of the color chart (which has known color values) and CALIBRATE ACR so that the red the camera captured matches the red in the chart. It's not the easiest of processes but it can give very good results.

If you shift hue in Aperture, you are shifting the hue of ALL colors. In Photoshop, you can shift hue and saturation of different colors independently. That's why it's called calibration.

Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
It's at version >>>>>>>> 1.1 <<<<<<<<<

Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Photoshop doesn't even offer advanced sharpening - you have to buy a plugin for that.

WRONG. I used to use a plugin called Focus Magic ($45) which used deconvolution (advanced refocusing algorithms). Adobe replaced my plugin with something even better called smart sharpen. Works basically the same but adds fractional radii and ability to limit sharpening in shadows. Plus, the filter runs about twice as fast. Also, most of the plugins for sharpening rely on photoshop's built-in USM and other filters to do their thing. For example, Fred Miranda's sharpening plugin which is popular among pro photographers is essentially an action (macro) which uses layers, USM, find edges, and other filters built into photoshop.


Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Aperture just needs layers, alpha channels, a few filters, a pen tool, lasso - and that's it - game over Adobe.

I don't think so. Apple is not going to devote the resources necessary to make Aperture a "Photoshop killer"

Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Can or Will Apple implement these in Aperture? Who knows. I'll tell you one thing though - image editing is one of a few creative areas Apple isn't in right now, and the day they decide to compete in this area, they will own it just like they have done with every other creative app they've made.

I guess we shall see. Personally, I think what Adobe has with Photoshop is similar to what Apple has with the iPod. It's not as easy as it seems to beat.
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Daffy_Duck

I guess we shall see. Personally, I think what Adobe has with Photoshop is similar to what Apple has with the iPod. It's not as easy as it seems to beat.

I think a better analogy would be with Microsoft and Windows. There are many applications that are easier, especially for mid-range users and those who design for web, than Photoshop, and less idiosyncratic in the way they work.
post #40 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
I think a better analogy would be with Microsoft and Windows. There are many applications that are easier, especially for mid-range users and those who design for web, than Photoshop, and less idiosyncratic in the way they work.

Personally, I love the way Photoshop works. I guess I am weird. I don't use it for web design, I use it for photography. Maybe that makes a difference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Universal Binaries on the Way