Do you think Apple is helping Adobe with the port of its applications, specifically Photoshop, so that they can not only get it running on an Intel Mac ASAP but to also help them incorporate the features of CoreImage?
Adobe is one of the big developers, so of course they have Apple Developer help, more than most Select Developer members (who can request engineering help). I would think that most of Adobe's code will port with relatively few changes. After all, they have shared code-bases with most of their big products, so the byte-order is probably already well handled.
But on the CoreImage part... almost definitely the answer is no. Adobe makes everything cross-platform, and CoreImage has no counterpart on Windows. Even if they want to use something like that it would have to be in the filters (actually the place where they would do the most good), and I would not even hold your breath on that point. Maybe if what Microsoft eventually comes up with is similar enough they will be able to make an abstraction layer to wrap around it, but that would have to wait until after Longhorn ships (end of next year... probably).
Adobe makes everything cross-platform, and CoreImage has no counterpart on Windows.
Well that's what I was thinking...but then there's Altivec...Adobe has sure written code into Photoshop to help enhance it on the G4/G5 via altivec...so what say you?
Well that's what I was thinking...but then there's Altivec...Adobe has sure written code into Photoshop to help enhance it on the G4/G5 via altivec...so what say you?
The only Altivec code is in some filters (per the next sentence in my post), and Altivec does have a congrut in MMX/SSE/SSE2, although those are not as good.
A particularly interesting side note on this one. The MMX optimizations made to the Photoshop filters initially centered around Gaussian blur (much of it paid for by Intel), but due to limitations in MMX it could only really help when the filter was exactly 2x2 pixels. Any other size and it was useless and defaulted to the non-MMX code. So for about a year and a half every time you saw Windows benchmarked on Photoshop they were using 2x2 Gaussian blurs extensively. Altivec has never imposed restrictions like this...
Mow we just have to wait to see if the new SIMD unit that Intel has been saying is coming out middle of 2006 will finally be real competition for Altivec (convenient how that timing is just about when Apple will start shipping Intel processors, no?)
The only Altivec code is in some filters (per the next sentence in my post), and Altivec does have a congrut in MMX/SSE/SSE2, although those are not as good.
A particularly interesting side note on this one. The MMX optimizations made to the Photoshop filters initially centered around Gaussian blur (much of it paid for by Intel), but due to limitations in MMX it could only really help when the filter was exactly 2x2 pixels. Any other size and it was useless and defaulted to the non-MMX code. So for about a year and a half every time you saw Windows benchmarked on Photoshop they were using 2x2 Gaussian blurs extensively. Altivec has never imposed restrictions like this...
Mow we just have to wait to see if the new SIMD unit that Intel has been saying is coming out middle of 2006 will finally be real competition for Altivec (convenient how that timing is just about when Apple will start shipping Intel processors, no?)
The good thing is that Adobe prioritize MMX/SSE/SSE2 optimizations over AltiVec optimization, so we should get better optimized code in the coming Adobe apps running on Intel.
Well that's what I was thinking...but then there's Altivec...Adobe has sure written code into Photoshop to help enhance it on the G4/G5 via altivec...so what say you?
It is called platform optimization, they did the same thing for things like Intel MMX (which acctualy came out WAY before altvec, but did the same sort of thing) and with the switch, the Apple userbase can benifit from the 10+ years that adobe has spent tweaking and optimising for MMX, SSE, and the pentium in general.
The porting of photoshop should be divided into two distinct categories; filters and everything else.
Filters/plugins are typically highly optimized for each specific platform and exist in quite a few different incarnations. Thankfully, these are relatively free-standing with well defined interfaces with the rest of the code.
The GUI and program logic will affect perceived responsiveness but not filter efficiency. This will be much harder to debug and could result in the GUI being slugish like initial releases of OS X. This isn't to say that the release will be held up by debugging of the GUI port. Rather, it will be shipable but with issues.
While reworking of filter code isn't trivial, it will certainly be easier to debug.
I believe that there is an opportunity for Adobe and Apple to work together to develop an iPhotoshop (or, expecially, iPhotoshop Elements x) software. If they don't work together then Apple will continue to enhance iPhoto, moving into the Elements 3 area to some degree. Combining development assets could result in a new app that is compatible with Photoshop and still provides Apple with an app requiring minimum investments. The painful part for Apple would be the need to share in the revenues, but I believe that the resulting app would be a strong seller, especially at the Elements level. The ability to update all filters (and add a few more) may be the key selling point in terms of getting the companies to work together. My credit card is ready.
Comments
But on the CoreImage part... almost definitely the answer is no. Adobe makes everything cross-platform, and CoreImage has no counterpart on Windows. Even if they want to use something like that it would have to be in the filters (actually the place where they would do the most good), and I would not even hold your breath on that point. Maybe if what Microsoft eventually comes up with is similar enough they will be able to make an abstraction layer to wrap around it, but that would have to wait until after Longhorn ships (end of next year... probably).
Originally posted by Karl Kuehn
Adobe makes everything cross-platform, and CoreImage has no counterpart on Windows.
Well that's what I was thinking...but then there's Altivec...Adobe has sure written code into Photoshop to help enhance it on the G4/G5 via altivec...so what say you?
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Well that's what I was thinking...but then there's Altivec...Adobe has sure written code into Photoshop to help enhance it on the G4/G5 via altivec...so what say you?
The only Altivec code is in some filters (per the next sentence in my post), and Altivec does have a congrut in MMX/SSE/SSE2, although those are not as good.
A particularly interesting side note on this one. The MMX optimizations made to the Photoshop filters initially centered around Gaussian blur (much of it paid for by Intel), but due to limitations in MMX it could only really help when the filter was exactly 2x2 pixels. Any other size and it was useless and defaulted to the non-MMX code. So for about a year and a half every time you saw Windows benchmarked on Photoshop they were using 2x2 Gaussian blurs extensively. Altivec has never imposed restrictions like this...
Mow we just have to wait to see if the new SIMD unit that Intel has been saying is coming out middle of 2006 will finally be real competition for Altivec (convenient how that timing is just about when Apple will start shipping Intel processors, no?)
Originally posted by Karl Kuehn
The only Altivec code is in some filters (per the next sentence in my post), and Altivec does have a congrut in MMX/SSE/SSE2, although those are not as good.
A particularly interesting side note on this one. The MMX optimizations made to the Photoshop filters initially centered around Gaussian blur (much of it paid for by Intel), but due to limitations in MMX it could only really help when the filter was exactly 2x2 pixels. Any other size and it was useless and defaulted to the non-MMX code. So for about a year and a half every time you saw Windows benchmarked on Photoshop they were using 2x2 Gaussian blurs extensively. Altivec has never imposed restrictions like this...
Mow we just have to wait to see if the new SIMD unit that Intel has been saying is coming out middle of 2006 will finally be real competition for Altivec (convenient how that timing is just about when Apple will start shipping Intel processors, no?)
The good thing is that Adobe prioritize MMX/SSE/SSE2 optimizations over AltiVec optimization, so we should get better optimized code in the coming Adobe apps running on Intel.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Well that's what I was thinking...but then there's Altivec...Adobe has sure written code into Photoshop to help enhance it on the G4/G5 via altivec...so what say you?
It is called platform optimization, they did the same thing for things like Intel MMX (which acctualy came out WAY before altvec, but did the same sort of thing) and with the switch, the Apple userbase can benifit from the 10+ years that adobe has spent tweaking and optimising for MMX, SSE, and the pentium in general.
edit: OOPS JLL beat me to it...
Filters/plugins are typically highly optimized for each specific platform and exist in quite a few different incarnations. Thankfully, these are relatively free-standing with well defined interfaces with the rest of the code.
The GUI and program logic will affect perceived responsiveness but not filter efficiency. This will be much harder to debug and could result in the GUI being slugish like initial releases of OS X. This isn't to say that the release will be held up by debugging of the GUI port. Rather, it will be shipable but with issues.
While reworking of filter code isn't trivial, it will certainly be easier to debug.