or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Photoshop engineer details Intel Mac challenges
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe Photoshop engineer details Intel Mac challenges

post #1 of 70
Thread Starter 
A software engineer working on Adobe Photoshop says the company's decision not to deliver native Intel Mac support until the next major release of its high-end graphics suite is a result of the enormous task associated with switching to Apple Computer's Xcode development environment.

Last month, Adobe chief executive Bruce Chizen stated that Creative Suite 3 -- which will include the next major releases of Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive and Acrobat -- will not be available until the second quarter of 2007.

"When that original [68K to] PowerPC transition was done, Apple did something clever. Very clever," Adobe engineer Scott Byer wrote in a posting on his Web site. "The emulator that ran 68k code would recognize when it was calling out to PPC code, and would fiddle with thingsÂ*on the stack using the Universal Procedure calling vector."

This enabled Adobe to replace many of its 68k "heavy lifting" routines with PPC native versions through plug-ins that were distributed to customers.

"With a plug-in, Photoshop [was able to] get a majority of the speed up as if it were a fully native application, but -- and it's a key point here -- without having to recompile the vast majority of the Photoshop code, along with the resulting testing hit, mounds of debugging, and everything else that would imply," Byer wrote. "Doing that this time around was just not possible for a variety of reasons."

In order for developers to properly build a Universal Binary -- a version of an application that will run natively on both PowerPC and Intel Macs -- they'll need to transition their application's codebase to Apple's Xcode development environment. [What this] means is that this time, there's no limited-cost option for getting most of the performance available on the platform for Photoshop in a short amount of time" Byer wrote. "In other words, no shortcuts."

"That leaves doing the work for real -- taking the whole application over into XCode and recompiling as a Universal Binary," Byer continued.Â*"And that's no small task."

Since Apple's Xcode is a relatively new development environment, it had previously been unsuitable for use in the development of extremely large projects with large numbers of files that open quickly, Byer explained. So instead, Adobe has so far relied on development environments from Visual Studio and Metroworks, which also feature more compact debugging information and more stable project formats that are text-merge-able in a source control system.Â*

"These are things XCode is playing catch-up on," said Byer. "Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping Xcode in hand that handles a large application well. And switching compilers always involves more work than you would think in a codebase of this size."

It wouldn't "make any sort of sense" for Adobe to release a Universal Binary of Photoshop CS2, the current version of the company's software suite, the engineer contends.

"If you think about switching tool sets, with the resulting huge amount of work for both engineering and quality engineering, if you think about how far past the Photoshop CS2 release we already are, and if you include not having the workstation-class machines ready yet, I think you'd have to agree," Byer wrote. "[It's] far better to focus on making sure Photoshop CS3 is able to absolutely squeeze every ounce of power out of what I'm sure will be pretty spankin' Intel-based towers by that point than to do tons of work moving an old code base to new tools."
post #2 of 70
sounds valid......?
post #3 of 70
The moral of the story: If you HAVE to have a fast Photoshop, stay with PPC for now...and save your money.
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 #4 of 70
I can't understand why they just now came out with this article, unless it's to give credence it.

I've quoted this article almost a week ago in our own threads.

I'll post the link again, with the related one.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html

http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...24/560461.aspx

We've been having a rather heated discussion about this issue.

There are just a couple of people here who think Adobe is dragging their feet. I don't agree.
post #5 of 70
Does anyone know why you have to use Xcode to build a Universal Binary?
post #6 of 70
Because Apple are barstards. They knew there was a possibility to need to run a universal binary capable xcode enviroment ever since os x development stages. they have had a lot of time to ready themselves for that.

None of the other development software "people" have had the time NOR will they ever, they will need to spend a lot of time updating their libraries. Its no mean feat.
post #7 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by ChristoRogers
Does anyone know why you have to use Xcode to build a Universal Binary?

I've been wondering that too. It seems rather dumb to force developers to use one compiler to make universal apps.
post #8 of 70
The trouble is that a lot of big projects are written using Metrowerks Codewarrior. As that software is not longer supported and will never be updated to support compiling for Intel, devs have no choice but to move their packages to the only show in town now: Xcode.

Creating Universal Apps in itself is really easy though, and doesn't require Xcode. Specifically I have been porting a bunch of Unix apps to Intel recently and its painless to produce Universal apps.
post #9 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by dr_lha
The trouble is that a lot of big projects are written using Metrowerks Codewarrior. As that software is not longer supported and will never be updated to support compiling for Intel, devs have no choice but to move their packages to the only show in town now: Xcode.

Creating Universal Apps in itself is really easy though, and doesn't require Xcode. Specifically I have been porting a bunch of Unix apps to Intel recently and its painless to produce Universal apps.

Basic apps without a GUI or other specialized libraries and such may be easy, though, even then, you have to de-bug them, and test them. You still have to optimize them, if they require certain performance characteristics. Even worse, some code may be assembly. It's surprising how many programs have long assembly routines when speed is an issue. That all has to be coded by hand. Each Endian problem has to be found, by hand, and redone.

Even XCode doesn't do all of this.
post #10 of 70
So basically, instead of preparing for the future they saved everything until the last second. Instead of gradually, over time doing things the right way, they saved almost a total code re-write until the last second.
post #11 of 70
Sounds valid to me. This transition is tough on Adobe, and on Adobe users. For now. With great long-term benefits to come. It's too bad, but that's reality. The only one to blame is IBM for not wanting to be in the personal computer processor business--and maybe not even them: it just wasn't a money-maker like consoles are.
post #12 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by bdkennedy1
So basically, instead of preparing for the future they saved everything until the last second. Instead of gradually, over time doing things the right way, they saved almost a total code re-write until the last second.

So, you didn't actually bother to pay attention to what was being said? Read the two links I posted, carefully. You should get a good idea for what is happening.
post #13 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
So, you didn't actually bother to pay attention to what was being said? Read the two links I posted, carefully. You should get a good idea for what is happening.

Come of it, who follows links?
post #14 of 70
remember that when Apple said "using Xcode it should be relatively easy to create universal binaries" last year at WWDC? that was also the day they dropped the Intel bomb. technically nobody but Apple and Intel knew the Intel transition was coming till then, so Apple had a big head start. they HAD to have that advance work ready before making the announcement.

i thought since then there have been other solutions to making universal binaries? i have no idea.... as an end user i have little in depth knowledge of this.

as much as i would like to see them shipping all universal apps, Adobe does seem to have a valid point though. the important points on their side are:

1) this is a big project for them to undertake, let them do it right
2) by the time they hack CS2 it will be almost time for CS3 anyway. why pull developers to patch "old" code instead of hastening the work on the next thing?
3) there are no Intel based towers available yet, and will the big customers jump on a potentially buggy Rev. A machine anyway? a lot of designers use towers for the horsepower, and they do not even exist yet.
4) the big companies that REALLY use Photoshop in a big way (and buy a ton of licenses) never jump to the newest software till they know it is pretty bug-free. remember how long it took those people to jump to OS X at all? they will want Intel towers and some solid proof the Intel based stuff works. bugs cost them time which means money.

when you look at it from their standpoint as developers and a bunch of managers looking at the business side of things..... it seems unfortunate, but reasonable. i'm sure a ton of Pro level users with Intel based Macs want their Photoshop right now, but they knew what they were getting into, and depending on how old the machine is they replaced they may still be effectively faster even running Rosetta. i know a new 20" iMac (or MAcBookPro) running Photoshop through Rosetta emulation would still be faster than on my G4 tower. when CS3 ships it will be a nice speed hop.
post #15 of 70
I suspect this bitching is a bit of both--a more difficult transition than Apple's making it out to be, and PR to lower expectations of a sooner release.

It only makes sense for Adobe to get it right before releasing CS3, but my guess is that it'll make it to market sooner than the quoted 2nd quarter of 2007. Can't you just see Adobe making a big splash announcement of CS3 availability at MacWorld in January?
post #16 of 70
This isn't "inside" information, nor is it news. Shame on AppleInsider for publishing this as a story!
post #17 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by crampy20
Come of it, who follows links?

If you don't carefully read the article, and won't follow the link to the actual blog, and the one expanding on it, then why post at all?

Most people do follow links, if they want to understand what is actually being said.

They also try to follow as much of the thread as possible before posting.
post #18 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by ficino
This isn't "inside" information, nor is it news. Shame on AppleInsider for publishing this as a story!

They never said it was "inside" information. Very few of the articles are. It's news, though not exactly new.

It's also information about a topic frequently debated on this site.

As such, it should have been published.
post #19 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Basic apps without a GUI or other specialized libraries and such may be easy, though, even then, you have to de-bug them, and test them. You still have to optimize them, if they require certain performance characteristics. Even worse, some code may be assembly. It's surprising how many programs have long assembly routines when speed is an issue. That all has to be coded by hand. Each Endian problem has to be found, by hand, and redone.

Even XCode doesn't do all of this.

No doubt, and I wasn't saying that. I just meant, the actual creation of a Universal Binary itself is simple. Testing is a whole different matter.

I'm fully aware of Endian issues, one of the reasons I have a Mac in the first place is because it has the same Endian processor that the embedded system I work with has. Of course this has gone out of the window with Intel Macs!
post #20 of 70
Apple has been saying for, well, *years* that developers needed to move to Xcode... Cocoa preferred, Carbon if they needed to... but Xcode in any case.

The big houses have a major task ahead of them in migrating, but they simply have to, no other way about it. Metrowerks has, for all intents and purposes, vacated the Mac market, and other IDEs such as Eclipse, just don't do the Apple mambo quite right yet.

No developer can say, with a straight face, that they were caught off-guard by the need to move to Xcode. They may have been caught off-guard by the *strength* of that need, "OMG, you're *serious*?" but they can't say they weren't warned about it long ago.

Adobe has a valid point, however, that the IDE has needed maturation - which is kind of unfortunate, since it was actually a highly robust IDE, and considered state of the art... in 1996. They let it languish, and now they have to catch up. Which I think they're doing well, to be honest.

Adobe and the other big houses should have had a plan in place by this point though, to migrate portions as test cases. They really can't claim they were blind-sided... now Apple has to deliver the goods to make it viable.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #21 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Apple has been saying for, well, *years* that developers needed to move to Xcode... Cocoa preferred, Carbon if they needed to... but Xcode in any case.

The big houses have a major task ahead of them in migrating, but they simply have to, no other way about it. Metrowerks has, for all intents and purposes, vacated the Mac market, and other IDEs such as Eclipse, just don't do the Apple mambo quite right yet.

No developer can say, with a straight face, that they were caught off-guard by the need to move to Xcode. They may have been caught off-guard by the *strength* of that need, "OMG, you're *serious*?" but they can't say they weren't warned about it long ago.

Adobe has a valid point, however, that the IDE has needed maturation - which is kind of unfortunate, since it was actually a highly robust IDE, and considered state of the art... in 1996. They let it languish, and now they have to catch up. Which I think they're doing well, to be honest.

Adobe and the other big houses should have had a plan in place by this point though, to migrate portions as test cases. They really can't claim they were blind-sided... now Apple has to deliver the goods to make it viable.

This really is a serious issue.

But, the truth is that Apple never gave developers a good reason to switch over.

Every major developer I've spoken to has slammed Apple's toolset.

What people forget is that if it wasn't for MetroWorks, Apple might not be here today. And then, after they think they don't need them anymore, Apple tells people to leave them. That's not right either.

What Apple should have done was to help MetroWorks bring their software up to the requirements of moving to UV.

Are Apple developers benefiting from just having one set of tools? No way.

If Apple was hinting that developers would *need* to move to XCode, rather than saying that they wanted them to, it might have been different.

It also might have been different if Apple told their major developers before June 2005 that they were going x86.

MS does one thing right, it tells its partners (and even the public) where it's going long before it starts the work. Apple always waits until the last minute.

If anyone thinks that Apple wasn't working on getting most of its own programs UV'd long before June 2005, we have a bridge here in Brooklyn that you might want to look into.
post #22 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This really is a serious issue.

But, the truth is that Apple never gave developers a good reason to switch over.



2000: "Hi, we're the folks who write the OS you ship on... you really should be moving to this toolset." "Yeah, sure, whatever."

2001: "Hi, you really should be thinking about this toolset..." "Uh-huh. Yeah, right."

200{2,3,4}: <repeat>

2005: "Hi, here's why we've been telling you for FIVE YEARS to move... have you considered it?" "HOLY JINKIES! WE WEREN'T WARNED!"

Not taking advice seriously != not warned.

Quote:
Every major developer I've spoken to has slammed Apple's toolset.

Prior to Dec 2005, it was not great, no two bones about it. Now, it's got so many &*%($@ bells and whistles it's almost difficult to navigate. :P Starting to look like Visual Poo. (I like the visualization toolset though - coming along nicely.)

Quote:
What people forget is that if it wasn't for MetroWorks, Apple might not be here today. And then, after they think they don't need them anymore, Apple tells people to leave them. That's not right either.

Er, Metrowerks hasn't been keeping up on the Mac for a *long* time. Ask them how their Cocoa support is. G'wan, I'll wait. (There isn't any.) Basically, Metrowerks made the decision to exit the Mac market by default a few years ago, and have only stayed on to keep a few big customers (Adobe, etc) happy. I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the Mac altogether now - I used to be a HUGE CW user and fan, but I haven't met anyone outside of the companies with massive legacy codebases that still uses them. They became their own niche when they crawled into it, IMO.

Quote:
What Apple should have done was to help MetroWorks bring their software up to the requirements of moving to UV.

That would have been nice, but from my estimation, Metrowerks moved on to greener pastures (game dev) long ago.

Quote:
Are Apple developers benefiting from just having one set of tools? No way.

They certainly weren't benefitting from CodeWarrior any more... :P "Hi! Write your app in pure sweet Carbon, and produce a CFM binary! It's so retro!"

Quote:
If Apple was hinting that developers would *need* to move to XCode, rather than saying that they wanted them to, it might have been different.

When someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes, and when your OS vendor suggests STRONGLY for MANY YEARS that you look at this other option, you at least take them seriously enough to have a back-up plan... especially when they're known for secrecy. (You don't dive headlong into it until you seem them commit, since they're also known for changing their &*($# minds, but you at least investigate it as a possibility and produce conversion estimates, game plans, etc, etc...)

Quote:
It also might have been different if Apple told their major developers before June 2005 that they were going x86.

True. We would have all known 24 hours later, and the PR spin control would have kept John Dvorak in Krispy Kremes for another four years.

Quote:
MS does one thing right, it tells its partners (and even the public) where it's going long before it starts the work. Apple always waits until the last minute.

True. It's been a lot of fun watching the circus what is Vista PR... I consider that public service of entertainment, at least.

Quote:
If anyone thinks that Apple wasn't working on getting most of its own programs UV'd long before June 2005, we have a bridge here in Brooklyn that you might want to look into.

Well of course - you test on your own internal apps before requiring it of external developers. That's common sense.

Look, Adobe has a *huge* task in front of them, and I don't envy them that job. It's going to be a royal PITA, no matter how they approach it. Also, they are correct that the tools have not been up to the task prior to now. But to say they weren't warned? That they had no indication that they needed to migrate pre-WWDC05? Sorry, I don't buy it. I've been hearing "Move to Xcode as soon as you reasonably can" for five years. They've been hearing the same. You'd think they would have at least done code evaluation, test migrations, project estimates, etc. to prep for it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #23 of 70
I think it's great that such an article does exist.

Personally, I knew that Adobe had it's reasoning for waiting for another year (it may seem forever away, but it's closer than it seems). I applaud Beyer for taking the time to explain to it's customers why they weren't rushing to make a compatable release.

In my mind, I look at the Intel switch as big news, and other programs are already native, so just slap on a patch and release the product. I am not a developer, so I had no idea how much time it took to ready the product. I'm still not quite sure on the specs of XCode and the other program, but I do know that they are different.

I guess this is a lot of rambling to say thank you keying me in on why decisions were made, and not leaveing it at, "because we decided not to."
post #24 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Every major developer I've spoken to has slammed Apple's toolset.

Melgross, you're just so... connected
post #25 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha


2000: "Hi, we're the folks who write the OS you ship on... you really should be moving to this toolset." "Yeah, sure, whatever."

2001: "Hi, you really should be thinking about this toolset..." "Uh-huh. Yeah, right."

200{2,3,4}: <repeat>

2005: "Hi, here's why we've been telling you for FIVE YEARS to move... have you considered it?" "HOLY JINKIES! WE WEREN'T WARNED!"

Not taking advice seriously != not warned.



Prior to Dec 2005, it was not great, no two bones about it. Now, it's got so many &*%($@ bells and whistles it's almost difficult to navigate. :P Starting to look like Visual Poo. (I like the visualization toolset though - coming along nicely.)



Er, Metrowerks hasn't been keeping up on the Mac for a *long* time. Ask them how their Cocoa support is. G'wan, I'll wait. (There isn't any.) Basically, Metrowerks made the decision to exit the Mac market by default a few years ago, and have only stayed on to keep a few big customers (Adobe, etc) happy. I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the Mac altogether now - I used to be a HUGE CW user and fan, but I haven't met anyone outside of the companies with massive legacy codebases that still uses them. They became their own niche when they crawled into it, IMO.



That would have been nice, but from my estimation, Metrowerks moved on to greener pastures (game dev) long ago.



They certainly weren't benefitting from CodeWarrior any more... :P "Hi! Write your app in pure sweet Carbon, and produce a CFM binary! It's so retro!"



When someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes, and when your OS vendor suggests STRONGLY for MANY YEARS that you look at this other option, you at least take them seriously enough to have a back-up plan... especially when they're known for secrecy. (You don't dive headlong into it until you seem them commit, since they're also known for changing their &*($# minds, but you at least investigate it as a possibility and produce conversion estimates, game plans, etc, etc...)



True. We would have all known 24 hours later, and the PR spin control would have kept John Dvorak in Krispy Kremes for another four years.



True. It's been a lot of fun watching the circus what is Vista PR... I consider that public service of entertainment, at least.



Well of course - you test on your own internal apps before requiring it of external developers. That's common sense.

Look, Adobe has a *huge* task in front of them, and I don't envy them that job. It's going to be a royal PITA, no matter how they approach it. Also, they are correct that the tools have not been up to the task prior to now. But to say they weren't warned? That they had no indication that they needed to migrate pre-WWDC05? Sorry, I don't buy it. I've been hearing "Move to Xcode as soon as you reasonably can" for five years. They've been hearing the same. You'd think they would have at least done code evaluation, test migrations, project estimates, etc. to prep for it.

Apple was very wishy washy over the years in telling developers to move over. It's veery cute, the way you describe it, but not entrirely accurate. Whenever Apple would be asked to fix something, Apple didn't respond. Whenever Apple was asked to add something, Apple didn't respond.

I don't know even one developer that has said that Apple told them that they MUST switch over. Not one. Most developers I've spoken to said that they had the feeling that Apple wanted them to move over because they (Apple) wanted to control the toolset. Not a good reason. Particularly when that toolset is so poor.

They also told me that they felt that Apple was trying to get them to move to Cocoa, without having a good reason for them to do so. It's well known that for many programs, Cocoa offers no benefits, and sometimes the solutions are poorer and more restrictive.

As you know, even now, developers are complaining about the toolset, as well as the libraries. It's better, but despite what you may say about MetroWorks not keeping up, MetroWorks is still considered to be a much better enviornment.

For smaller programs, it doesn't matter much.

But metroWorks has slowly lost interest as Apple has stopped using them, and has attempted to push developers to its own tools. MetroWorks can't fight Apple.

I'm not so sure that Apple has been so cooperative regarding MetroWorks. That could easily be another reason why they have lost interest. And after last June...

Back to Adobe, and all of the other developers of "big" programs who say that XCode sucks. It's not just them. It the game developers who have been complaining as well. MS isn't too happy either. The list goes on.

It's certainly an over simplification to say that they should have moved over earlier.

If you read those blogs, you would know very well why they didn't. And those blogs are being applauded by every developer out there.
post #26 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
Melgross, you're just so... connected

Despite your sarcasm, yes, I know a lot of people.
post #27 of 70
While I'm sure Xcode isn't at full strength just yet, I find it hard to believe that it "doesn't handle a large application well."

Aren't the Final Cut and iWork suites built in Xcode? Along with Quark?
The Apple website does highlight a boatload of Universal apps.

Is this simply something unique to the Photoshop (image-processing) side?

Adobe's timelines have always been slower due to the fact that they use their own imaging routines so that the code is cross-platform. This, in addition to the Macromedia buyout, is slowing down CS3. Adobe must be having a heck of a time figuring out how to integrate Flash, Dreamweaver and GoLive into an integrated Web development approach.

While Apple's not blameless here, I still think Adobe is projecting more blame onto Apple than it deserves.
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 70
This is a bit ridiculous. Adobe came out with CS2 around April last year. Apple announced Intel in June. That's only about 3 months into the next development cycle. That's nothing in an 18-24 month cycle (or whatever Adobe uses).

I understand the transition from Codewarrior to XCode is a big task, but I'm positive there was already a group at Adobe working on getting things to compile on XCode in parallel with the work being done in Codewarrior. How else would they know that XCode is too slow? Why they haven't got things working by now is beyond me. It's certainly not wasted effort to compile your code in two different environments because you can catch more bugs that way (ie. different compilers give different warnings/errors).

And speaking of XCode, it's not too slow for large projects. At least, not if you have things broken down into smaller subprojects such as separate libraries, tools, etc. I'd assume that any sane project would be broken down into smaller subcomponents -- especially if there's code which is shared between multiple applications like the Creative Suite has. The only painful part about using XCode with a number of subprojects is that you can't set it up to search code within a subproject from a higher level project properly.

So yeah, I'm not really buying the arguments. I still think that the project managers dropped the ball on this and are looking for excuses. They should have been working on fitting their projects into XCode years ago, and the timing of the Intel switch was not as bad as they are making it out to be.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
While I'm sure Xcode isn't at full strength just yet, I find it hard to believe that it "doesn't handle a large application well."

Aren't the Final Cut and iWork suites built in Xcode? Along with Quark?
The Apple website does highlight a boatload of Universal apps.

Is this simply something unique to the Photoshop (image-processing) side?

Adobe's timelines have always been slower due to the fact that they use their own imaging routines so that the code is cross-platform. This, in addition to the Macromedia buyout, is slowing down CS3. Adobe must be having a heck of a time figuring out how to integrate Flash, Dreamweaver and GoLive into an integrated Web development approach.

While Apple's not blameless here, I still think Adobe is projecting more blame onto Apple than it deserves.

No one said it couldn't be done. But, it requires a lot more hand coding. It requires chasing down libraries that aren't included, it requires finding and fixing Endian issues by hand, in most cases.

And, yes, Adobe has many specialized buckets of code that must be re-done by hand. Assembler code as well.

And the issues of Macromedia's programs are also highly involved.

I've brought all of this up in our previous thread about the Aperture 1.1 update delay.

But, there are always going to be two or three guys who don't want to consider any of that to be important. They just want it NOW. Nothing gets in the way of that.

Adobe isn't projecting blame. All of the people who are wondering why it's going to take so long are looking for answers.

It's very difficult to do all three things at once.

1. Move to a new platform with a new (to you) toolset that isn't as good as what you've been using (why you haven't moved before).

2. Come out with a new version of a complex graphics suite. One that must work with many third party plug-ins and programs.

3. Integrate features and programs from a big company that you have recently bought before you have had time to even integrate the development teams. Do it as you work.

The complaints we're getting is that Adobe isn't UVing the older CS2. The thought from them is that as it is already finished, it should be easy. Of course, it isn't. Adobe might have been able to get that ready for the forth quarter of this year, possibly even for the beginning of the forth quarter, say, October.

But then they would have delayed CS3 for god knows how long. End of 2007?

There isn't any way they could have done that. MS is breathing down their back with a new suite of their own which is very different in the way it works, but may have great appeal to the business user. That suite will work only on Windows. Adobe must consider that as well.

They could always work on the Windows version of the suite, and have it come out sooner, while allowing the Mac version to drag on past that, but they won't. Even though Windows users (the ones who comprise 70+% of the suite users) complain that Adobe should customize the suite for them, Adobe refuses to do so.

I'd say that all shows surprising strength for Adobe's continued Mac support.
post #30 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
[B]Apple was very wishy washy over the years in telling developers to move over. It's veery cute, the way you describe it, but not entrirely accurate. Whenever Apple would be asked to fix something, Apple didn't respond. Whenever Apple was asked to add something, Apple didn't respond.

I'm not saying they were perfect by *any* means - heck, I've been unhappy with Xcode myself for quite a while. (Or was, I haven't seriously used it in about 8 months.)

Quote:
I don't know even one developer that has said that Apple told them that they MUST switch over. Not one. Most developers I've spoken to said that they had the feeling that Apple wanted them to move over because they (Apple) wanted to control the toolset. Not a good reason. Particularly when that toolset is so poor.

Well of course not. Apple says "You *HAVE* to switch over..." Dev says "Uh, why?" Apple says "Uh, trust us?" They get laughed at, devs don't switch anyway. You're right that the devs weren't given a hard and fast reason. What I'm saying is that the writing was on the wall for the non-obtuse to think that *maybe* they needed to consider it.

Quote:
They also told me that they felt that Apple was trying to get them to move to Cocoa, without having a good reason for them to do so. It's well known that for many programs, Cocoa offers no benefits, and sometimes the solutions are poorer and more restrictive.

True. But that was an assumption on their part, not the statement from Apple, right? Apple tried the "Go Cocoa!" route, and it didn't work. They then backed off to "Migrate to Xcode as soon as you can." Sorry, but I've been getting that message crystal clear for a *long* time now.

Quote:
As you know, even now, developers are complaining about the toolset, as well as the libraries. It's better, but despite what you may say about MetroWorks not keeping up, MetroWorks is still considered to be a much better enviornment.

I'm not talking about the IDE, I'm talking about the technology support. CFM and Toolbox support are, for all intents and purposes, dead in the OS. Yet Metrowerks didn't make a big push to keep up with even the big chunks of Core, that I've been able to tell. (Admittedly, I wrote them off a while ago, and haven't kept up.)

*IF* you had a huge Carbon code base that you didn't want to migrate seriously to new technologies (CoreData, etc), then yeah, they're an *excellent* solution. I still think that if they had decided to continue strong Mac support, they would have.

Quote:
For smaller programs, it doesn't matter much.

Quite true.

Quote:
But metroWorks has slowly lost interest as Apple has stopped using them, and has attempted to push developers to its own tools. MetroWorks can't fight Apple.

They did during the PPC transition, and made a *killing*. They were, by far, the best toolkit at the time, on Mac or Windows.

Quote:
I'm not so sure that Apple has been so cooperative regarding MetroWorks. That could easily be another reason why they have lost interest. And after last June...

Entirely possible, but MW is *very* cross platform already. I can't help but believe that if they'd made a strong commitment to Mach-O, they'd be sitting pretty right now. \ It's too bad really, I used to really dig on them.

Quote:
Back to Adobe, and all of the other developers of "big" programs who say that XCode sucks. It's not just them. It the game developers who have been complaining as well. MS isn't too happy either. The list goes on.

It's certainly an over simplification to say that they should have moved over earlier.

No, what I said was that they don't have much room to say they weren't warned earlier. I was very clear, I thought, that the tools *weren't* ready a couple years ago, but dear god, I would have taken the hint and at least floated a trial program internally to get an idea of what it would take, what more would be needed, what Xcode was lacking, etc.

For them to come out now and say "We had *no clue* they were serious..." just makes me roll my eyes.

A lot of houses *did* do the due diligence effort, and while they still have a heck of a task in front of them, they can at least say they are going into it eyes open.

Quote:
If you read those blogs, you would know very well why they didn't. And those blogs are being applauded by every developer out there.

Well, everyone needs a scapegoat some time... that's just human nature. \

To recap:

1) I don't think they had a solid reason to migrate *before* this
2) I don't think the tools were ready *before* this
3) I don't think the big houses should have migrated before this
but...

4) I don't think they have an excuse to claim they were caught completely unawares, and that Apple blindsided them

See the difference?

I think Adobe's statement is *wonderful*, except for that little detail. That's all.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #31 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The complaints we're getting is that Adobe isn't UVing the older CS2. The thought from them is that as it is already finished, it should be easy. Of course, it isn't. Adobe might have been able to get that ready for the forth quarter of this year, possibly even for the beginning of the forth quarter, say, October.

I must be one of the few that never expected a Universal CS2.

However, I am one of the many whose Sawtooth G4 will be replaced in the fall.
That happens whether there's a CS3 or not.

This would seem to be the perfect time to launch a Photoshop competitor, but it seems nobody - unbelievably - has been working on one.

You would think that competing with an app that costs US$650. would catch somebody's attention. Even Office attracts competitors like ThinkFree and Corel.
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 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
I'm not saying they were perfect by *any* means - heck, I've been unhappy with Xcode myself for quite a while. (Or was, I haven't seriously used it in about 8 months.)



Well of course not. Apple says "You *HAVE* to switch over..." Dev says "Uh, why?" Apple says "Uh, trust us?" They get laughed at, devs don't switch anyway. You're right that the devs weren't given a hard and fast reason. What I'm saying is that the writing was on the wall for the non-obtuse to think that *maybe* they needed to consider it.



True. But that was an assumption on their part, not the statement from Apple, right? Apple tried the "Go Cocoa!" route, and it didn't work. They then backed off to "Migrate to Xcode as soon as you can." Sorry, but I've been getting that message crystal clear for a *long* time now.



I'm not talking about the IDE, I'm talking about the technology support. CFM and Toolbox support are, for all intents and purposes, dead in the OS. Yet Metrowerks didn't make a big push to keep up with even the big chunks of Core, that I've been able to tell. (Admittedly, I wrote them off a while ago, and haven't kept up.)

*IF* you had a huge Carbon code base that you didn't want to migrate seriously to new technologies (CoreData, etc), then yeah, they're an *excellent* solution. I still think that if they had decided to continue strong Mac support, they would have.



Quite true.



They did during the PPC transition, and made a *killing*. They were, by far, the best toolkit at the time, on Mac or Windows.



Entirely possible, but MW is *very* cross platform already. I can't help but believe that if they'd made a strong commitment to Mach-O, they'd be sitting pretty right now. \ It's too bad really, I used to really dig on them.



No, what I said was that they don't have much room to say they weren't warned earlier. I was very clear, I thought, that the tools *weren't* ready a couple years ago, but dear god, I would have taken the hint and at least floated a trial program internally to get an idea of what it would take, what more would be needed, what Xcode was lacking, etc.

For them to come out now and say "We had *no clue* they were serious..." just makes me roll my eyes.

A lot of houses *did* do the due diligence effort, and while they still have a heck of a task in front of them, they can at least say they are going into it eyes open.



Well, everyone needs a scapegoat some time... that's just human nature. \

To recap:

1) I don't think they had a solid reason to migrate *before* this
2) I don't think the tools were ready *before* this
3) I don't think the big houses should have migrated before this
but...

4) I don't think they have an excuse to claim they were caught completely unawares, and that Apple blindsided them

See the difference?

I think Adobe's statement is *wonderful*, except for that little detail. That's all.

We don't seem to be differing much on this, mostly a matter of emphasis.

I'm sure that all the major developers, at least, have been evaluating XCode for quite a while. I know that Adobe has, because being a beta tester for many years for them, as well as having had a company that they sometimes used as a test bed, we discussed it.

The only thing that developers (have to have an acronim for that, any ideas?) are being blindsided by, is the switch to x86.
post #33 of 70
Maybe I am coming from a completely different profession in saying this but the thing that surprises me about Adobe is that they sound like they have had their thumbs up their backsides for the past 4-5 years.

It seems if they had good and thoughtful management someone would have seen this possibility coming and prepared for it. While I am sure Programming is a lot more complex and difficult than Video Editing and Graphics, which is my profession, it doesn't seem at all smart to keep your eggs in one basket. Even though I mainly use Avid, Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects for every day work use, I make sure that I also know how to use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Combustion, Shake and a variety of other programs in case I need to use them or if a job becomes available where they are required knowledge.

It amazes me that Adobe sounds like they haven't ever touched XCODE and have never even tried to make a rough version of any of their programs in XCODE before Apple announced the intel transition.

I doubt someone will release a "Photoshop Killer" but it will really surprise me if some company doesn't come in and try to take some of their market share away while they are in chaos mode trying to figure out the intel transition and how to combine the adobe and macromedia catalog together.

And Personally I would like to see Apple and Adobe stop their bickering and get back to working productively with each other. They both owe each other for still being alive today.

On a side note, anyone else find it funny that Final Cut Pro, the application that really made Adobe feel like Apple stabbed them in the back (Windows-esque Style) was designed by former Adobe employees that designed Premiere for Macromedia which was then sold it to Apple by a company Adobe would buyout a few years later? Talk about covering your bases. I wonder if Adobe knew what they were getting themselves into by buying a company out right instead of just a select application.
post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I must be one of the few that never expected a Universal CS2.

However, I am one of the many whose Sawtooth G4 will be replaced in the fall.
That happens whether there's a CS3 or not.

This would seem to be the perfect time to launch a Photoshop competitor, but it seems nobody - unbelievably - has been working on one.

You would think that competing with an app that costs US$650. would catch somebody's attention. Even Office attracts competitors like ThinkFree and Corel.

Very few have expected that. It's just that those thar did are really pissed at Adobe for not releasing one, and so they are venting their spleen over the fact that CS# is due out at around April, which is still within (though just barely) their normal 18 to 24 month development cycle.

This is why I don't think this whole argument makes any sense.
post #35 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Maybe I am coming from a completely different profession in saying this but the thing that surprises me about Adobe is that they sound like they have had their thumbs up their backsides for the past 4-5 years.

It seems if they had good and thoughtful management someone would have seen this possibility coming and prepared for it. While I am sure Programming is a lot more complex and difficult than Video Editing and Graphics, which is my profession, it doesn't seem at all smart to keep your eggs in one basket. Even though I mainly use Avid, Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects for every day use, I make sure that I also know how to use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Combustion, Shake and a variety of other programs in case I need to use them or if a job becomes available where they are required knowledge.

It amazes me that Adobe sounds like they haven't ever touched XCODE and have never even tried to make a rough version of any of their programs in XCODE before Apple announced the intel transition.

I doubt someone will release a "Photoshop Killer" but it will really surprise me if some company doesn't come in and try to take some of their market share away while they are in chaos mode trying to figure out the intel transition and how to combine the adobe and macromedia catalog together.

And Personally I would like to see Apple and Adobe stop their bickering and get back to working productively with each other. They both owe each other for still being alive today.

On a side note, anyone else find it funny that Final Cut Pro, the application that really made Adobe feel like Apple stabbed them in the back (Windows-esque Style) was designed by former Adobe employees that designed Premiere for Macromedia which was then to Apple by a company Adobe would buyout a few years later? Talk about covering your bases. I wonder if Adobe knew what they were getting themselves into by buying a company out right instead of just a select application.

If you read the blogs, you would see that Adobe had been evaluating XCODE for some time.It just wasn't good enough for them to have made the change.

Look, CS3 will be coming out about the time it would have, XCODE or not. At the most, it will be near the end of the normal development cycle, instead of near the beggining.

People seem to forget that the Windows version will be arriving at the same time.
post #36 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Look, CS3 will be coming out about the time it would have, XCODE or not. At the most, it will be near the end of the normal development cycle, instead of near the beggining.

People seem to forget that the Windows version will be arriving at the same time.

I'm not worried about that as much as I am about Adobe software becoming flawed on the Apple side compared to the Windows side. They might throw a cold shoulder to Macs for a select few features or not care as much about fixing bugs for a company that they see as screwing them over in more than a few markets (Aperture/FCP).

I have upgraded to After Effects 7 and from a good amount of use in both systems I can say it runs more smoothly on a PC compared to a Mac. I just hope this isn't a sign of things to come.
post #37 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
I'm not worried about that as much as I am about Adobe software becoming flawed on the Apple side compared to the Windows side. They might throw a cold shoulder to Macs for a select few features or not care as much about fixing bugs for a company that they see as screwing them over in more than a few markets (Aperture/FCP).

I have upgraded to After Effects 7 and from a good amount of use in both systems I can say it runs more smoothly on a PC compared to a Mac. I just hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

I don't think so. The Mac sales side of it has been rising slightly over the past year.

Despite some friction between Apple and Adobe, Adobe knows that its danger comes from MS. I'm pretty sure, that because of that perception, they would like Mac sales to rise, if for no other reason than to be a bulwark against the day that MS comes out with that suite (if they do).
post #38 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Apple has been saying for, well, *years* that developers needed to move to Xcode... Cocoa preferred, Carbon if they needed to... but Xcode in any case.

The big houses have a major task ahead of them in migrating, but they simply have to, no other way about it. Metrowerks has, for all intents and purposes, vacated the Mac market, and other IDEs such as Eclipse, just don't do the Apple mambo quite right yet.

No developer can say, with a straight face, that they were caught off-guard by the need to move to Xcode. They may have been caught off-guard by the *strength* of that need, "OMG, you're *serious*?" but they can't say they weren't warned about it long ago.

Adobe has a valid point, however, that the IDE has needed maturation - which is kind of unfortunate, since it was actually a highly robust IDE, and considered state of the art... in 1996. They let it languish, and now they have to catch up. Which I think they're doing well, to be honest.

Adobe and the other big houses should have had a plan in place by this point though, to migrate portions as test cases. They really can't claim they were blind-sided... now Apple has to deliver the goods to make it viable.

One Addendum: Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft and a few lesser houses were told the future dev environment for the next OS (Rhapsody-OS X) is based on the Openstep APIs, language of design (ObjC) and that was 1997 WWDC which coincides with the Carbon 1.0 paper release to all the Devs. I know I had to hand them out and explain Cocoa.
post #39 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't think so. The Mac sales side of it has been rising slightly over the past year.

Despite some friction between Apple and Adobe, Adobe knows that its danger comes from MS. I'm pretty sure, that because of that perception, they would like Mac sales to rise, if for no other reason than to be a bulwark against the day that MS comes out with that suite (if they do).

Hopefully Adobe will end up bringing cs3 to market early.

I've said this before, but I really wonder if Apple isn't trying to become vertically integrated. If you go to the Apple store and look at the software Apple makes, the only thing really missing is a photoshop like app. Really in all core digital media areas there is an Apple solution.
post #40 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Maybe I am coming from a completely different profession in saying this but the thing that surprises me about Adobe is that they sound like they have had their thumbs up their backsides for the past 4-5 years.

It seems if they had good and thoughtful management someone would have seen this possibility coming and prepared for it. While I am sure Programming is a lot more complex and difficult than Video Editing and Graphics, which is my profession, it doesn't seem at all smart to keep your eggs in one basket. Even though I mainly use Avid, Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects for every day work use, I make sure that I also know how to use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Combustion, Shake and a variety of other programs in case I need to use them or if a job becomes available where they are required knowledge.

It amazes me that Adobe sounds like they haven't ever touched XCODE and have never even tried to make a rough version of any of their programs in XCODE before Apple announced the intel transition.

I doubt someone will release a "Photoshop Killer" but it will really surprise me if some company doesn't come in and try to take some of their market share away while they are in chaos mode trying to figure out the intel transition and how to combine the adobe and macromedia catalog together.

And Personally I would like to see Apple and Adobe stop their bickering and get back to working productively with each other. They both owe each other for still being alive today.

On a side note, anyone else find it funny that Final Cut Pro, the application that really made Adobe feel like Apple stabbed them in the back (Windows-esque Style) was designed by former Adobe employees that designed Premiere for Macromedia which was then sold it to Apple by a company Adobe would buyout a few years later? Talk about covering your bases. I wonder if Adobe knew what they were getting themselves into by buying a company out right instead of just a select application.

They have, from the beginning, refused to rewrite any application in ObjC. The fact that ObjC++ is mature within GCC is one less excuse for Adobe. Microsoft is no different, nor Macromedia.

They want to keep their app code base in C++ as much as possible.

Hell, they use Trolltech Qt C++ frameworks for some of their projects. They use GTK+ I believe for their Linux port of Acrobat Reader. The primary language is C++.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Photoshop engineer details Intel Mac challenges