Originally Posted by kpluck
If you want a sample of Adobe's commitment to OS X, just have a look at this thread in their support forums:http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3c06277e
If you read through that thread, you will see that Adobe's stance with CS3 problems in Leopard is that it is basically Apple's fault and they are not going to be doing anything about the issues.
I still think Adobe's commitment lies very much with Windows users.
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Now it's over and Adobe has no longer the leverage it once held.
Apple can thrive without them.
What's worse for Adobe is this little known application that they borrowed many ideas from back starting in 1997:
I disagree, I think if Apple didn't have Adobe, I certainly wouldn't be using a Mac, nor would any of the designers I work with. I even considered switching over completely when there was no native CS suite for such a long time and I saw that Adobe software generally runs faster on Windows. The rest of the OS put me off so I'm sticking to OS X now but I would put up with the problems on Windows if Adobe software became unusable on OS X.
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
What makes this point relevant is the fact that it's creators shutdown operations of Caffeine Soft to go work for Apple in the Quartz Team, Applications Teams.
If Apple wants to really screw Adobe it can release a new product that can do 90% of what Photoshop does, today, and for a fraction of the price.
Then Apple can open up the plugin-in API and offer a low cost add-on to bury Adobe by duplicating what Photoshop does but works seemlessly within Apple's workflow application suites.
Apple can but will it?
If they could, it would still be irrelevant. An app that doesn't do as much as Photoshop still won't rival the CS Suite, which has Flash, Dreamweaver, illustrator, Indesign, Fireworks, Photoshop and more.
iweb is nowhere near good enough relative to Dreamweaver
Apple have no vector software and are not likely to get it
Motion is not as good as After Effects by a long way
Pixelmator, Quartz apps etc have a long way to reach Photoshop level especially with the number of plugins
Taking all that into account, IMO Apple *need* Adobe to remain viable in most professional lines of creative work.
Originally Posted by rain
If a render is going to take 5 min over 4 minutes, no designer cares, we are busy trolling sites like this or off getting a cup of coffee and conversing with co-workers.
Don't I know it and playing your damn hippie/funky/repetitive/out of tune music too loud. All the while us developers try to get the real work done.
Originally Posted by rain
Render time is our 'creative time'... if anything, Hey Adobe... make your crappy apps slower.
Originally Posted by strobe
First of all it isn't always easier to write in Cocoa, especially when you have your own platform neutral interface code in C++.
Exactly. I wish that Apple hadn't made the distinction at all, though it makes sense in some ways. Just transparently make it so that code works no matter what it is. There was no need to give people an identity to hate in the form of Carbon especially since there is no way they can clearly define what it is to the general public to whom these identities matter.
A Cocoa project can be entirely C/C++ but naturally so can a Carbon one. So if they have the same code then how do they differ? It's just the libraries they are linked to (the stuff from NexT vs the stuff from OS 9) but if the two apps work the same way then there's no difference at all. With most cross-platform code like Photoshop, they'll rely on custom code over system libraries anyway to ensure that OS updates don't break their app and that the feature works the same way on different platforms.
The reason they won't have gotten rid of those old libraries and might never do so is that if an app uses those libraries and has a great deal of code reliant on it, it's not as simple as switching to the Cocoa equivalent as it will do things a different way. In a small app, this is a fairly easy task. In an app with hundreds of millions of lines of code, it isn't easy and it isn't worth it.
People often forget the time frame involved here. OS X is a relatively new platform and it's only been on the market for 8 years. An average developer can code around 1000 lines of useful code a month. A good developer can probably double that so co-ordinating thousands of developers to work on tens of millions of lines of code isn't an easy task.
code-base changes / (developers x 2000 LOC pm) = average development time
Adobe said they changed 60 million LOC for CS3 so:
60 million / (1000 devs * 2000 LOC pm) = 30 months = 2.5 years, which is about how long we waited for CS3.
I reckon that although 64-bit is useful now, it is not of the utmost importance based on the number of people who need it. The number of people with 8GB+ Ram in their Macs will be very small.
What I never understood about Photoshop and generally all creative apps is why they don't have paging systems where only a certain portion of an image is loaded into Ram. Then all they need is various snapshots at different resolutions that would be updated with the changes made to a portion. Photoshop and other apps already do this to an extent but they still load the entire file. You can speed up Photoshop's image loading by reducing these levels from about 8 I think default to 1 in the performance section.
For example, say you have a 10000x10000 image and it's a picture of a person and you need to touch up the face. Why load that image entirely? Simply create a snapshot that is the size of the display resolution. Then allow people to pick an area to work on and it will load another snapshot of the face at screen resolution (this would not be recompressed). Computers are fast enough that this process should be dynamic and you should in theory be able to work on infinite resolution images with as little as 1 GB Ram. The only part that would strain is creating the snapshots but OS X can make thumbnails of folders of 2000x2000 images in real-time.
It would still struggle if you were editing 20%+ of the image at a time but for high resolution images, people would be working on smaller details. It would also still struggle on copy/paste buffers and file saving but for a good deal of uses, it should speed things up considerably.
Indesign would only load 3 pages at full resolution at a time and you'd just see snapshots at any other scale.