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 - Page 2

post #41 of 70
1. On the AppleInsider home page, why is this story listed with the "Inside Info" icon when it seems to be based upon public blogs?

2. If Adobe has truly been working on Lightroom for 3+ years as they claim (and presumably started writing it in that non-XCode development system) and since Lightroom indeed includes all of Adobe Camera Raw inside it (hence its more comprehensive raw conversions than Aperture) . . . then how come it was so easy to convert that to XCode? How does that jibe with the "pain" of converting Photoshop? Didn't Lightroom development teach Adobe anything about converting PS to XCode?

Adobe's argument is very, very weak.
post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.

Isn't Assembler code below the operating system? In other words, if Adobe already has Intel Assembler code for Windows, don't they just reuse that for OS X on Intel now?

If there's one thing Adobe (and Microsoft) don't have to re-write, it's Assembler code.
post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
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.

I don't think so. Apple has had many opportunities over the years to buy programs. They only seem to buy those that will have some direct effect in an industry in which Apple is trying to sell machines.

When Metacreations sold off their portfolio of apps, Apple was thought to be the perfect suitor. But they made no move, and Corel bought them. Much more recently, when Corel announced they they would be for sale, Apple again failed to pick them up. These programs sold for a song.

Apple could have had Painter, Bryce, Poser, and some others, the names of which escape me.

When Macromedia announced they were up for sale, Apple could have picked them up. Adobe paid $3.4 Billion. Apple might have had to bid, and so might have paid $4 billion. But they would have had Director, Freehand, Flash, and many more.

Flash is a major standard, on many more machines that Quicktime, or any other framework.

Apple would have had more for a suite, if they needed one.

Then Apple would have had close to $4 billion a year in software sales.

But, I think this, and other missed opportunities, show that Apple really isn't interested. They are still primarily a hardware manufacturer, and the OS and other software is there to sell that.

It's why I find it hard to believe that Apple will license OS X for other x86 machines.
post #44 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Isn't Assembler code below the operating system? In other words, if Adobe already has Intel Assembler code for Windows, don't they just reuse that for OS X on Intel now?

If there's one thing Adobe (and Microsoft) don't have to re-write, it's Assembler code.

No, any program can use assembler for routines.
post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
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++.

ObjC++ is very well done nowadays (although it hasn't been for all that long) and it does make bringing Cocoa to existing C++ code rather painless. However, existing Carbon code is a different story. There's no reason for them to change that which doesn't need changing.
post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No, any program can use assembler for routines.

And when they do, they are going around the operating system. They are writing to the hardware. So it doesn't matter which operating system is running. So assembler written for Intel is assembler written for Intel, no matter whether Windows or OS X is running.
post #47 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Isn't Assembler code below the operating system? In other words, if Adobe already has Intel Assembler code for Windows, don't they just reuse that for OS X on Intel now?

If there's one thing Adobe (and Microsoft) don't have to re-write, it's Assembler code.

This is true.

However, I don't know how hard it is to (a) move that assembler into Xcodeit's likely the hardest part of the Xcode transition.. and (b) it is to switch the Mac version to the Intel assembler code (shouldn't be that hard, but you never know how Adobe set up their code 10 years ago...).
post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
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.

And for good reason.

I love Objective-C, it's my language of choice, but if someone told me to port a 10-year-old app to it "just because," I'd laugh in their face. Especially if I needed to continue coding it in C++ for other platforms.
post #49 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
And when they do, they are going around the operating system. They are writing to the hardware. So it doesn't matter which operating system is running. So assembler written for Intel is assembler written for Intel, no matter whether Windows or OS X is running.

Well, that's sort of a yes and no kind of thing. Plus, assembly syntax differs from compiler to compiler.
post #50 of 70
Yeah well Digidesign announced a Universal version of Pro Tools by the end of Q2 this year!! Pro Tools is a huge application as well and arguably far more complex since it depends on Digidesign's Audio engine which provides realtime read/write of multiple channels of audio along with realtime processing of multi-channel audio.

Apple managed to get Logic Audio and Final Cut Pro into X-Code and ship a Universal app. Again, these apps are probably "Larger" than Photoshop and depend again on some pretty heavy duty realtime processing.

Photoshop in comparison is very "unsophisticated" with all its simple single offline processing.

Sounds like a whole lot of excuses and politics going on at Adobe.
post #51 of 70
XCode, X-Code, xCode, XCODE... sheesh people, it's just "Xcode". 8)
post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Targon
Yeah well Digidesign announced a Universal version of Pro Tools by the end of Q2 this year!! Pro Tools is a huge application as well and arguably far more complex since it depends on Digidesign's Audio engine which provides realtime read/write of multiple channels of audio along with realtime processing of multi-channel audio.

For real time handling, you want that code to be as simple as possible in the first place. If that's a piece of hardware, then that is likely irrelevant because dedicated processing hardware generally simplifies the software.

Quote:
Apple managed to get Logic Audio and Final Cut Pro into X-Code and ship a Universal app. Again, these apps are probably "Larger" than Photoshop and depend again on some pretty heavy duty realtime processing.

How long has Apple had to convert that software to Xcode? They may have been porting it for five years or more.

Quote:
Photoshop in comparison is very "unsophisticated" with all its simple single offline processing.

I think you are underestimating the program's complexity quite a bit.
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by crampy20
Come of it, who follows links?

You, if you're seriously interested. Why pollute a topic by posting a bunch redundant content just to satisfy someone's laziness?
post #54 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).

To my mind Adobe is forgetting where their roots are (they started their rise on the Mac). To put it more aggressively, Adobe starts to wipe their roots out deliberately. They forget about the easy way to get things done. Photoshop is getting more and more "windowesc" - Bloatware. I get more and more the impression, that Photoshop is developed with Windows as it's prime target (Force of marketshare?). We Mac users get what is left after a more or less poor done port. For me Adobe is slowly but steadily lost to the dark side of the force.

To much rant?
post #55 of 70
The thing is - if that's the case - why isn't anyone else building a Photoshop competitor?

If the bloatware allegation is true, then a lean, mean Xcode-driven competitor with 50-75% of Photoshop's features should be able to garner significant marketshare.

Why isn't anyone trying?
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 #56 of 70
Kind of a collection of thoughts:

For years apple has been struggling with getting CPU supplies from Moto and IBM that competed with Intel/AMD offerings, specifically in the portable market. It was publicly known that high yields, clockspeeds increases/time, and general development of PPC processors could not suit Apple's needs.

I believe it to have been rather common knowledge that x86 builds of OS X have been around Apple since possibly the OS X transition, but more commonly discussed in the last couple of years.

It seems to be somewhat reckless to not consider a move by Apple to Intel processors and think of how to prepare for such a transition. I believe the idea is over a decade old in theoretical senses, and had been mentioned within discussions on these forums for several years (Jan 99). I'm sure people were talking about a MacTel machine before the first G4 towers came out.

MacTel does have some sort of malicious connotation IMPO. Nowhere in any serious context have Intel based Macs ever been reffered as MacTel.

With MetroWerks continually lacking with their support and development of CodeWarrior and Apple continually developing and pushing their toolset (which has been around for how long? I'm not sure when Xcode 1.0 was out), huge developers who plan to continually develop for a growing OS should have at least maybe downloaded it from Apple's website and piddled around with it, considering it could forseeably be the sole toolkit for them to work with. The case Adobe is making seems to echo that they had barely even knew of the existence of Xcode and why Apple pushed it.

I'm not aware of the benefits, abilities or qualities of either toolsets, but Apple makes some pretty amazing software titles. Aperture, the whole Final Cut Studio, Shake, Logic, iLife, iWork, Logic etc. all work very well and I generally feel they operate more reliably and efficiently than anything Adobe has put out lately.

I do not believe, well Apple didn't give us a shortcut like they did with 68k > PPC as a reasonable excuse as to why they have been caught with their pants down in a way.

I also do not believe Adobe is entirely at fault, Apple is always primarily concerned with its own interests and blabbing to everyone a year or so ago that they will be porting to Intel could have been devastating. Though I think the current way the whole company has been riding the iPod+iTunes wave, it might have been wise to have told developers earlier to get their software ready... since now the "MacTel" cat is only half way out of the bag with two main product lines still in PPC limbo.

Completely a tangent because I just read the article back in January about AE7 to be lacking a nice Universal Logo on the box... Someone had mentioned the acquistion of Macromedia (something I believe Microsoft had been interested in as well) and how Microsoft currently does not complete with Adobe titles in the fashion that Apple does. This made me quite frightened of a potential global scale bridge burning of Adobe turning away from Apple. Though this obviously isn't happening with the Press Releases about Universal support being held of until CS3 etc etc. The potential for such a scenario though kind of resonated in my head though.

It the capacity for predicting and actively preparing for plausible scenarios and taking action accordingly that would have not left Adobe (as well as Apple and its customers) in this mess.

[sarcasm]Maybe Adobe will offer a solution to current MacTel owners, to install Windows and run Adobe titles natively under Windows. Considering how well XP can run on an Apple system (from what I've heard), and to have natively coded software for the Operating System, it seems to be the most realistic solution for individuals concerned with the uber performace of their apps.[/sarcasm]

It has been a continually noted scenario on these boards of what would make developers bother to develop for both OS X and Windows Vaepa* when they could essentially create software for Windows if it can somehow easily be ported or natively run on an Apple system (obviously this is a much more complex issue and brings on issues of mutliple operating system installs or emulation).

So Apple tried to cover its ass with secrecy (nothing new in the last three decades), Adobe kind of sat twidbling thumbs in their throne... and now the whole mess has resulted into something that too closely parellels the blame game in Katrina. Instead of spending time, resources and thought into blame, why just accomplish the appropriate and effective solution as soon as possible with all sides working together... and if it's anything like progress in New Orleans (and many other affected areas), Universal CS3 might not be anything more than an empty box in shrinkwrap by Q2 2007. Even Apple couldn't keep its March deadline for UB of Aperture.

*Vaepa... vapor.. vaporware... funny... maybe not.
post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by CDonG4
Maybe Adobe will offer a solution to current MacTel owners, to install Windows and run Adobe titles natively under Windows.

Five minutes after Adobe announced that, Apple would announce plans to buy Quark, and upgrade Aperture to absolutely vaporize Photoshop's marketshare.
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 #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Five minutes after Adobe announced that, Apple would announce plans to buy Quark, and upgrade Aperture to absolutely vaporize Photoshop's marketshare.

It is plausible, and with plausible scenarios companies strategize accordingly. It would be stupid for Adobe to not have already considered dropping out from the Mac market, and it would be stupid of Apple to not have already considered what solutions they would have for such a scenario.

I see tides changing, Apple is developing more software for its own OS moreso than ever before and there is no indication of this trend subsiding. Everything could just go as planned and not many surprises. Apple has a little rough patch during the transition to Intel, once everyone is on board... Apple takes the reigns of the personal computing world and 1984 is here... iSights in every mirror.
post #59 of 70
This kind of reminds me of Quark. Remember how it took them like 16 million year to put out the first OS X code cause they had to do an almost complete rewrite? Well, they did that, and now they are releasing their Universal Binary of Quark 7 in a couple of months.

Looks to me like Adobe is where Quark was in 2001-2004
post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.

And what even more people forget is that Metrowerks was financially supported by Apple for many years. Exactly how many years of life support is Apple supposed to give them? Especially once they became a clueless company that was failing to meet their users' (or Apple's) needs in anything approaching a timely fashion. This is a downright silly argument.

Metrowerks' ultimate demise has been obvious to the casual observer since 1999. Do you really think Apple didn't have a better perspective on it than the casual observer?
post #61 of 70
the main problem adobe had was that xcode was not a very good development environment. i have a friend who is very high up in adobe and the complaint has been that xcode was bad enough that it didn't make sense to just port the code over just for the hell of it. he did say, however, that apple was working very closely with them to improve xcode on a daily basis. so at least apple is serious about developing xcode.

another factor is that adobe is probably using the intel switch and vista delay as smokescreens to buy themselves more time to integrate the macromedia apps into the creative suite. it's a smart move on their part really. personally, i'll just wait out the first generation of intel powermacs and continue chugging along with cs2.
post #62 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
the main problem adobe had was that xcode was not a very good development environment. i have a friend who is very high up in adobe and the complaint has been that xcode was bad enough that it didn't make sense to just port the code over just for the hell of it. he did say, however, that apple was working very closely with them to improve xcode on a daily basis. so at least apple is serious about developing xcode.

another factor is that adobe is probably using the intel switch and vista delay as smokescreens to buy themselves more time to integrate the macromedia apps into the creative suite. it's a smart move on their part really. personally, i'll just wait out the first generation of intel powermacs and continue chugging along with cs2.

That's really the gist of it. I'll likely get a new Power Mac once it goes to its first revision. There are a lot of Sawtooth owners like myself who are ready to upgrade.

I'm running a FrankenSawtooth which has been upgraded to a 1GHZ processor.

Macworld says that anyone running less than a 1.2GHZ will see improvements when moving to the Intel iMac, so I expect moving to a new Power Mac this fall will still mean an improvement, even with Rosetta.
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 #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
1. On the AppleInsider home page, why is this story listed with the "Inside Info" icon when it seems to be based upon public blogs?

2. If Adobe has truly been working on Lightroom for 3+ years as they claim (and presumably started writing it in that non-XCode development system) and since Lightroom indeed includes all of Adobe Camera Raw inside it (hence its more comprehensive raw conversions than Aperture) . . . then how come it was so easy to convert that to XCode? How does that jibe with the "pain" of converting Photoshop? Didn't Lightroom development teach Adobe anything about converting PS to XCode?

Adobe's argument is very, very weak.

Lightroom was written with xcode and is a much smaller program in terms of code.
post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
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.

God forbid we ever blame Apple. Let's face it, there's a lot they could have done to make this a lot easier, but Apple secrecy trumps all.
post #65 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by copeland
To my mind Adobe is forgetting where their roots are (they started their rise on the Mac). To put it more aggressively, Adobe starts to wipe their roots out deliberately. They forget about the easy way to get things done. Photoshop is getting more and more "windowesc" - Bloatware. I get more and more the impression, that Photoshop is developed with Windows as it's prime target (Force of marketshare?). We Mac users get what is left after a more or less poor done port. For me Adobe is slowly but steadily lost to the dark side of the force.

To much rant?

Simply untrue. Don't ever misconstrue the addition of features that customers are demanding, for bloat, where features are added just to get users to upgrade.

There is a good reason why PS is central to all graphics, photographic, and publishing systems. There is also a good reason why it is also the hub of hundreds of plug-ins and sister programs around the world.

The reason is that only PS enables its users to do almost anything they need to do within those industries. PS is also used in video.

PS is a program that is very easy to use on a casual level, while allowing the concentrated professional user to dig into the depths necessary to do incredibly sophisticated hi end commercial, and scientific projects.

There is simply no other program that can cater to those casual users, while satisfying the the needs of the most sophisticated user base at the same time.
post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by sdfisher
And what even more people forget is that Metrowerks was financially supported by Apple for many years. Exactly how many years of life support is Apple supposed to give them? Especially once they became a clueless company that was failing to meet their users' (or Apple's) needs in anything approaching a timely fashion. This is a downright silly argument.

Metrowerks' ultimate demise has been obvious to the casual observer since 1999. Do you really think Apple didn't have a better perspective on it than the casual observer?

And where can you show that Apple gave Metroworks financial support, other than. perhaps, by purchasing the product for their own use (which they did for a while).
post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Lightroom was written with xcode and is a much smaller program in terms of code.

I agree. However, much of the reason Photoshop is the huge app it has become is that Adobe replicates their own imaging and interface infrastructure into the app, so that the code is fairly portable across the Mac and PC platforms.

While it's highly optimized, the situation is similar to how Windows sits atop Virtual PC on the Mac in order to run.

I would love to see what a pure Xcoded Photoshop clone, built just for the Mac platform, would look and perform like. My guess is that it would be a fraction of the size of Photoshop.
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 #68 of 70
I may get my chance sooner than I thought.

While it's not a real Photoshop competitor yet (no layers?), it's nice to see a new photo editor debut for Mac OS X.
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 #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I may get my chance sooner than I thought.

While it's not a real Photoshop competitor yet (no layers?), it's nice to see a new photo editor debut for Mac OS X.

Full 16-bit editing produces top quality results without sacrificing performance.

Um, 16 bit? Performance? How about quality.

I suppose that if you are only using it to update flikr than that's fine. But for the VAST majority of photoshop/aperture and even iphoto users I think that it is a non starter.

The casual observer will be able to tell the difference in photo quality if say for example they were to show their precious pics to friends on that brand new hidef TV.

But, I guess, if you shoot in 1-2mp range, then you might not care too much.
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
Full 16-bit editing produces top quality results without sacrificing performance.

Um, 16 bit? Performance? How about quality.


I don't understand your post. Are you trying to say there is something wrong with the fact that it has full 16 bit editing?
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