Originally posted by bikertwin
[B]Here are my thoughts:
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't. I mean you could comfortably run PS on a G3 iBook (800 MHz) with 640 MB RAM*; it won't be a speed demon, and you can't edit 100 MB files, but for the average photographer, it's a workable setup. On the other hand, you can't even load Shake on a G3 iBook**!
The problem with your assertions is that you make the mistake of "blaming", rather than to think about what it takes to produce the software packages.
Again, you disregard what I say, and just go on as though I've said nothing.
It can get frustrating to constantly reply, when you pretend that I've said things that I didn't say, and that I didn't say things that I did.
I will repeat this for the last time.
I NEVER said that Shake should be out now. I never said that I EXPECTED Shake to be out now.
I did say that it doesn't bother me that Shake is not out now, and that even if it came out early next year, I wouldn't be bothered.
If you can't get that, then you don't understand what I've been saying.
I'm not accusing ANYONE of being guilty of anything. YOU are. You started this entire discussion by assigning blame. Those of us who disagree with that assertion are saying that there should be NO blame for anyone.
What I, and others here are saying, is that if YOU are eager to blame one, then YOU should also blame the other.
In every single discussion that you have been involved in, that in any way whatsoever, could possibly involve Adobe, no matter how peripherally that might be, you have taken every opportunity to demonize the company.
They don't deserve that.
Now, in response to #1
No pro, and that is who you are concerned about, would use the computers you mentioned at all, unless they were at the poverty level of the business. You do realize that, of course. Your definition of "comfortably" is rather amazing. It shows that you don't use the program yourself. Without at least a G4, with Altivec, PS is UNcomfortably sluggish. You don't have to run 100MB files to see that. Just run a moderate size file of 40 to 50 MB's.
As others have already pointed out the virtues of the iMac after your post, and your agreement as to it's viability, I will consider that issue to be closed.
Certainly you know, melgross, that any kind of video editing/generating/encoding is far more taxing than a typical photography/PS workflow. If anything, I would say PS should be out in UB form before Final Cut Suite, since it's typically far less demanding. I'd rather use a UB version of PS on a MacBook Pro (or iMac) than a UB version of FCSuite (or Shake) on a MacBook Pro (or iMac).
Again, you seem to disregard any understanding of the development process as being necessary to this discussion.
Adobe and Apple, you may have noticed, are two companies. Apple develops its software, and Adobe develops theirs. Therefore, they are on two different tracks. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Both companies are using all due speed. to suggest anything else is is irresponsible.
Conclusion: The lack of a UB of Shake is perfectly consistent with the lack of desktop Apple-branded Intel hardware. In fact, with FCSuite being far more processor intensive than typical PS photography workflows, Apple is way ahead of Adobe.
Again, you are amazingly obtuse. Go back to the beginning of my post to see the answer to this continued incorrect assertion.
2. Aperture is a small program? It's 40 MB. Illustrator 10 is 50 MB, so roughly comparable. How can you say converting Aperture to UB is trivial compared to an Adobe app? And Aperture is going from version 1 to 1.1, with some signicant feature enhancements. http://www.apple.com/aperture/update.html
3. You also keep saying that FC Suite is significantly less complex than Creative Suite. You said, "FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be." Well, we're not talking about CS3, we're talking about why CS2 can't be converted.
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
*** -- http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp#product=39
As others have already posted to correct you on this, I won't bother.