Adobe Universal Binaries on the Way

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,798member
  • Reply 22 of 67
    I don't understand this comment:



    Quote:

    and there's a lot of work to move the code from Code Warrior over into Xcode, get that compiling, and then get that compiling on Mactel. So it's something where it's a long process.



    Code Warrior to Xcode could be a long process but compiling on Mactel from Xcode? Isn't that Xcode is made for?



    Quote:

    It's also the complexity of the code. I'm willing to bet PS is one of the most highly optimized apps around with quite a few parts written in altivec code. That doesn't compile for Intel architectures.



    Sure it does. Apple has a library for this which will use altivec or the equivilent Intel vector instructions. Did Adobe use it? Probbally not. Also don't forget that there is an Intel version of PS and these optimizations probbally deal with code not tied to a specific OS. I personally think one problem is crappy programming pratices.
  • Reply 23 of 67
    g::mastag::masta Posts: 121member
    ok, so now that Adobe are aiming for a year-end CS3 launch (with a pinch of salt) should I cancel the request for a G5 Quad loaded with 4GB RAM? Things like this drive me up the wall. I want a new machine, I want the speed that comes with Universal CS3 & Intel, but I'm not convinced I won't be throwing my new Powermac (or whatever it's called at that stage) out the window 'cos of bugs that need rev2 to iron out...
  • Reply 24 of 67
    i wouldn't bet on cs3 coming out this year. besides, even if it were to come out at the end of the year, would you want to do mission-critical work on the first universal binary version of creative suite? go ahead and buy the quad i say. of course, i have a quad already, so i guess i'm biased.
  • Reply 25 of 67
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent

    Code Warrior to Xcode could be a long process but compiling on Mactel from Xcode? Isn't that Xcode is made for?



    Bugs still pop up and it needs to go through QA. For example when Blizzard brought WoW across they got it compiling early but when they launched it there was an almost immediate bug. They then need to locate and fix that.



    Edit: Just expanded now that I have time.
  • Reply 26 of 67
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    I want to repeat this because I think it's unacceptable behavior from a huge company like Adobe:



    Why the fuck didn't they start porting to Xcode in parallel with the CodeWarrior version 5 years ago when Apple was telling everyone to move to Xcode?



    They could have continued shipping the CodeWarrior compiled Photoshop until the day they absolutely had to switch to Xcode. They wouldn't be stuck in the position of porting it to Xcode in 12 months.



    Someone at Adobe is an idiot and deserves to lose his job. Who is it? I invite the good folks at Adobe to ponder and reflect on who screwed up. And I use the term 'good' lightly.
  • Reply 27 of 67
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I would even prefer this scenario: Remember when Apple moved from 680X0 processors to the PPC platform and Adobe started off by releasing a plugin(s) that were compiled for PPC even though the actual application was still in the 680X0 code base?

    Why didn't Adobe start with that little step in anticipation of Apple's Intel move? Did they think Apple wouldn't go through with it and on April 1 say it was a big joke? Lame.
  • Reply 28 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider



    Why didn't Adobe start with that little step in anticipation of Apple's Intel move? Did they think Apple wouldn't go through with it and on April 1 say it was a big joke? Lame.




    Maybe they had plans to drop their OSX products but then changed(or had it changed) their minds at the last minute.
  • Reply 29 of 67
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 696member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent

    Maybe they had plans to drop their OSX products but then changed(or had it changed) their minds at the last minute.



    Yeah, thay had plans to drop 50% of their customer base.
  • Reply 30 of 67
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 696member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    I would even prefer this scenario: Remember when Apple moved from 680X0 processors to the PPC platform and Adobe started off by releasing a plugin(s) that were compiled for PPC even though the actual application was still in the 680X0 code base?

    Why didn't Adobe start with that little step in anticipation of Apple's Intel move? Did they think Apple wouldn't go through with it and on April 1 say it was a big joke? Lame.




    IIRC, the entire application has run native or in Rosetta. No mixed code.
  • Reply 31 of 67
    bwhalerbwhaler Posts: 260member
    I think we'll see CS 3 by end of the year.



    Luckily for us, Apple released Aperture. While not intended to be a Photoshop killer at all, it was a strong shot across Adobe's bow.



    After seeing what Apple was able to do to them in the video space, they are not going to risk pissing off Jobs and have an Photoshop killer come from Apple.
  • Reply 32 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    I'm not saying everyone is going to switch from Photoshop, I just said that it is falling behind. Aperture is at version >>1.1<< and by at least on review, already produces better colour from raw files than Photoshop.



    That's pretty much irrelevant as most pro photographers who use Photoshop for RAW conversion will do a custom color calibration yielding the best possible results for their camera(s).





    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    For the majority of users, Aperture just needs Curves, Layers, Filters, and a Handfull of other tools to be an adequate replacement for Photoshop.



    Maybe for novice users but for Pros and serious amateurs, Aperture could only be thought of as a replacement for Bridge and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). Aperture doesn't include anywhere near the funcionality of Photoshop and probably never will. How about advanced sharpening? What about blending multiple photos for high dynamic range subjects? What if I need advanced noise reduction? What about the advanced layer capabilities in Photoshop? How would I make a multiple exposure image like this: http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/34244176

    with Aperture? I guess my point is that Aperture is a developer, not an editor. It's but one part of what is often a multi-step process.
  • Reply 33 of 67
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Daffy_Duck

    That's pretty much irrelevant as most pro photographers who use Photoshop for RAW conversion will do a custom color calibration yielding the best possible results for their camera(s).



    What are you talking about? Your going to use custom calibration no matter what Raw converter you use. Aperture still renders color better regardless.





    Quote:

    Maybe for novice users but for Pros and serious amateurs, Aperture could only be thought of as a replacement for Bridge and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW).



    It's at version >>>>>>>> 1.1 <<<<<<<<<





    Quote:

    Aperture doesn't include anywhere near the funcionality of Photoshop and probably never will. How about advanced sharpening?



    Photoshop doesn't even offer advanced sharpening - you have to buy a plugin for that.



    Quote:

    What about blending multiple photos for high dynamic range subjects? What if I need advanced noise reduction? What about the advanced layer capabilities in Photoshop? How would I make a multiple exposure image like this: http://www.pbase.com/eclecticphoto/image/34244176

    with Aperture? I guess my point is that Aperture is a developer, not an editor. It's but one part of what is often a multi-step process. [/B]



    Aperture just needs layers, alpha channels, a few filters, a pen tool, lasso - and that's it - game over Adobe.



    Can or Will Apple implement these in Aperture? Who knows. I'll tell you one thing though - image editing is one of a few creative areas Apple isn't in right now, and the day they decide to compete in this area, they will own it just like they have done with every other creative app they've made.
  • Reply 34 of 67
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BWhaler

    I think we'll see CS 3 by end of the year.



    Luckily for us, Apple released Aperture. While not intended to be a Photoshop killer at all, it was a strong shot across Adobe's bow.



    After seeing what Apple was able to do to them in the video space, they are not going to risk pissing off Jobs and have an Photoshop killer come from Apple.




    Maybe you're right. Right now Adobe has Apple by the balls. By all indications, conroe will be ready to roll by this fall. If so new Power Macs could be introduced. Who will buy them without univerasl PS? People who use FCP can jump on in and get an intel mac but what about PS users? Every review of intel Macs mention that PS run under rosetta is unworkable. Pretty much the only app not workable under rosetta. When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.
  • Reply 35 of 67
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,798member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    Maybe you're right. Right now Adobe has Apple by the balls. By all indications, conroe will be ready to roll by this fall. If so new Power Macs could be introduced. Who will buy them without univerasl PS? People who use FCP can jump on in and get an intel mac but what about PS users? Every review of intel Macs mention that PS run under rosetta is unworkable. Pretty much the only app not workable under rosetta. When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.



    And Adobe knows Apple would be under tremendous pressure to fill that void.



    The more I think about it, the more I believe PS will be demoed at WWDC, with an announced delivery date between Oct and Dec 2005.
  • Reply 36 of 67
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    When the new power macs arrive, every day without universal PS will be lost sales.



    And all be it in a much smaller market, also a day for Aperture to gain marketshare on PS.
  • Reply 37 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    What are you talking about? Your going to use custom calibration no matter what Raw converter you use. Aperture still renders color better regardless.





    You don't understand. This: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/maccol.html



    is a MacBeth color chart. Take a picture of it with 2 cameras and both will render each square in a different way. It is possible to take a photo of the color chart (which has known color values) and CALIBRATE ACR so that the red the camera captured matches the red in the chart. It's not the easiest of processes but it can give very good results.



    If you shift hue in Aperture, you are shifting the hue of ALL colors. In Photoshop, you can shift hue and saturation of different colors independently. That's why it's called calibration.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    It's at version >>>>>>>> 1.1 <<<<<<<<<



    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Photoshop doesn't even offer advanced sharpening - you have to buy a plugin for that.



    WRONG. I used to use a plugin called Focus Magic ($45) which used deconvolution (advanced refocusing algorithms). Adobe replaced my plugin with something even better called smart sharpen. Works basically the same but adds fractional radii and ability to limit sharpening in shadows. Plus, the filter runs about twice as fast. Also, most of the plugins for sharpening rely on photoshop's built-in USM and other filters to do their thing. For example, Fred Miranda's sharpening plugin which is popular among pro photographers is essentially an action (macro) which uses layers, USM, find edges, and other filters built into photoshop.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Aperture just needs layers, alpha channels, a few filters, a pen tool, lasso - and that's it - game over Adobe.



    I don't think so. Apple is not going to devote the resources necessary to make Aperture a "Photoshop killer"



    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Can or Will Apple implement these in Aperture? Who knows. I'll tell you one thing though - image editing is one of a few creative areas Apple isn't in right now, and the day they decide to compete in this area, they will own it just like they have done with every other creative app they've made.



    I guess we shall see. Personally, I think what Adobe has with Photoshop is similar to what Apple has with the iPod. It's not as easy as it seems to beat.
  • Reply 38 of 67
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Daffy_Duck



    I guess we shall see. Personally, I think what Adobe has with Photoshop is similar to what Apple has with the iPod. It's not as easy as it seems to beat.




    I think a better analogy would be with Microsoft and Windows. There are many applications that are easier, especially for mid-range users and those who design for web, than Photoshop, and less idiosyncratic in the way they work.
  • Reply 39 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    I think a better analogy would be with Microsoft and Windows. There are many applications that are easier, especially for mid-range users and those who design for web, than Photoshop, and less idiosyncratic in the way they work.



    Personally, I love the way Photoshop works. I guess I am weird. I don't use it for web design, I use it for photography. Maybe that makes a difference.
  • Reply 40 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Daffy_Duck

    If you shift hue in Aperture, you are shifting the hue of ALL colors. In Photoshop, you can shift hue and saturation of different colors independently. That's why it's called calibration.



    That is not calibrating anything - that's just adjusting colours AFTER the raw conversion process. That's not what I'm saying at all. Aperture renders truer colour from Raw files period.



    Quote:



    WRONG. I used to use a plugin called Focus Magic ($45) which used deconvolution (advanced refocusing algorithms). Adobe replaced my plugin with something even better called smart sharpen.



    This is really great if you enjoy doing most of your post processing AFTER raw conversion which is not ideal. Adobe smart sharpen still doesn't offer a hell of a lot of control. Photoshop is 16 years old - it should do EVERYTHING better than Aperture, but it doesn't. Regardless, I said it once, you ignored it, I said it again and AGAIN you ignored it. One more time:



    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>VERSION 1.1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



    Quote:

    I don't think so. Apple is not going to devote the resources necessary to make Aperture a "Photoshop killer"



    That completely depends on how fast Adobe can move photoshop to universal binaries.



    Quote:

    I guess we shall see. Personally, I think what Adobe has with Photoshop is similar to what Apple has with the iPod. It's not as easy as it seems to beat. [/B]



    Photoshop is probably one of the easier Applications to knock off the top. It's full of old crap code, it does not handle large files well at all, it's not built for editing multiple images at once, and the majority of file formats you use with photoshop, Adobe doesn't own.
Sign In or Register to comment.