Let's not forget Logic Pro (which is a big app!) It was updated to UB before any other Apple pro apps.
I ran a Photoshop (CS 1 version) bench the other day on my dual 2GHz MacBook Pro, and it didn't seem to be slower than the previous generation PowerBook my coworker has.
Shake is NOT run on laptops generally, so I doubt anybody's losing any sleep over the lack of a UB at this point.
Wow. Maybe everybody needs to chill. This thread has become Melgross vs. Everyone Else Arguing about "who is more to blame" is starting to get a bit full-on.
I'm just trying to be fair, and not assigning blame anywhere. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to blame one, then you have to blame the other as well.
There are others here who are laying heavy blame on Adobe, who has been very pro Apple over the years, even as Apple's share of their market slipped significantly. And by pointing out that even Apple can't have all of their programs ready "on time".
That's not blame. It's just a realization of the realities.
I'm ready to let it rest anytime everyone else will.
Particularly the fact that this gives developers a reason to see code they haven't touched in years and do some debugging and feature updates.
I'm not angry at Adobe at all for their projected release of CS3.
But I don't believe its solely Xcode's fault. Adobe should have at the least been able to port parts of Photoshop to Xcode even if it took a long time.
I believe Adobe does have a running universal Photoshop in the lab. It probably isn't yet complete and I'm sure they are adding new features for CS3.
The same for Microsoft. The should have had parts of Office ported to Xcode even if it took awhile.
I can agree in both cases it makes no sense to do that much work just to do more work for a new version.
MS will not release the new Office 2007 for Mac before its released for Windows. Hopefully it will be released at the same time.
Nah, it's fun arguing sometimes. Gives these forums some "life" . Despite what I said before, I'll enter the fray again.
Now, Melgross, when confronted with Aperture delayed by two weeks with CS3 planned for a year, you shifted to talking about Shake and then saying well, look, Apple and Adobe are in the same boat.
I don't think it's fair to compare Shake with CS3. The size and nature of the user base of Adobe|Macromedia compared with that of Shake is vastly different. Pros using Shake are happy to go with the PowerMac Quad (and network rendering using PowerMac Quad nodes) for at least another year. By which time only then will Intel have the beef to meet the needs of Shake users.
But for Adobe|Macromedia users, using Intel Macs is at this stage a step backwards from PowerPC Macs because of Rosetta. Benchmarks have shown poorer times, and plugins don't work, etc.
So if we are talking Shake, a Universal Binary one year out is acceptable. If we are talking Adobe|Macromedia, a Univeral Binary one year out is most people would say, not acceptable given that the Intel Macs are very suitable and very efficient for Adobe|Macromedia programs. If they were Universal Binaries.
But I suppose I am coming around and now have some sympathy for the developers that, in the process of making Universal Binaries that process should be integrated in the making of the new version of those programs.
I suppose I'm just pissed because I'm taking it personally that this kind of leaves Apple in the lurch despite I'm sure Apple giving Adobe|Macromedia and Microsoft at least 1 year's notice.
Nah, it's fun arguing sometimes. Gives these forums some "life" . Despite what I said before, I'll enter the fray again.
Now, Melgross, when confronted with Aperture delayed by two weeks with CS3 planned for a year, you shifted to talking about Shake and then saying well, look, Apple and Adobe are in the same boat.
I don't think it's fair to compare Shake with CS3. The size and nature of the user base of Adobe|Macromedia compared with that of Shake is vastly different. Pros using Shake are happy to go with the PowerMac Quad (and network rendering using PowerMac Quad nodes) for at least another year. By which time only then will Intel have the beef to meet the needs of Shake users.
But for Adobe|Macromedia users, using Intel Macs is at this stage a step backwards from PowerPC Macs because of Rosetta. Benchmarks have shown poorer times, and plugins don't work, etc.
So if we are talking Shake, a Universal Binary one year out is acceptable. If we are talking Adobe|Macromedia, a Univeral Binary one year out is most people would say, not acceptable given that the Intel Macs are very suitable and very efficient for Adobe|Macromedia programs. If they were Universal Binaries.
What you wrote has nothing to do with anything.
It's the nature of the project that determines the time it takes to complete, and test it.
But I suppose I am coming around and now have some sympathy for the developers that, in the process of making Universal Binaries that process should be integrated in the making of the new version of those programs.
I suppose I'm just pissed because I'm taking it personally that this kind of leaves Apple in the lurch despite I'm sure Apple giving Adobe|Macromedia and Microsoft at least 1 year's notice.
Then give Apple some of the blame for the inadequacy of their tools.
Whoa. I'm pulling out of this disagreement. What started off as good-natured banter has descended into name calling. When we said "fuck adobe!" or "fuck apple!" initially there was a bit of sense of humour to it. Now it's all gotten so serious. I must say I'm dissapointed.
Whoa. I'm pulling out of this disagreement. What started off as good-natured banter has descended into name calling. When we said "fuck adobe!" or "fuck apple!" initially there was a bit of sense of humour to it. Now it's all gotten so serious. I must say I'm dissapointed.
It wasn't so serious Sunil. It was just gentle chiding. I didn't call you a name. I was just surprised you would have taken that argument. I don't see you that way.
Hey, talk about a great way to avoid an intelligent discussion. I'll have to remember that one.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's the nature of the project that determines the time it takes to complete, and test it.
That's so vague as to be impossible to contradict. How can anyone argue with a statement like that? sunilraman's post doesn't even contradict it.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Shame on you.
What a terrible thing to say. Sad, really.
I think what Sunilraman said made quite a lot of sense:
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
I don't think it's fair to compare Shake with CS3. The size and nature of the user base of Adobe|Macromedia compared with that of Shake is vastly different. Pros using Shake are happy to go with the PowerMac Quad (and network rendering using PowerMac Quad nodes) for at least another year. By which time only then will Intel have the beef to meet the needs of Shake users.
But for Adobe|Macromedia users, using Intel Macs is at this stage a step backwards from PowerPC Macs because of Rosetta. Benchmarks have shown poorer times, and plugins don't work, etc.
So if we are talking Shake, a Universal Binary one year out is acceptable. If we are talking Adobe|Macromedia, a Univeral Binary one year out is most people would say, not acceptable given that the Intel Macs are very suitable and very efficient for Adobe|Macromedia programs. If they were Universal Binaries.
Sunilraman, don't feel bad. You made a perfectly logical and cogent argument, totally relevent to the title and thrust of this thread, and a perfect counterpoint to melgross's posts. I enjoy your posts immensely.
I think most people's posts here have been quite logical. No one's going to run Shake on an iMac. Plenty of people have asked about Aperture and Photoshop and Office on iMacs and Mac Book Pros. It makes perfect sense for Apple to prioritize Final Cut Studio, iLife, iWork, and Aperture over Shake, based on the Intel hardware that's been released so far.
There's only one person whose arguments don't hold water here. Any guess?
Hey, talk about a great way to avoid an intelligent discussion. I'll have to remember that one.
That's so vague as to be impossible to contradict. How can anyone argue with a statement like that? sunilraman's post doesn't even contradict it.
What a terrible thing to say. Sad, really.
I think what Sunilraman said made quite a lot of sense:
Sunilraman, don't feel bad. You made a perfectly logical and cogent argument, totally relevent to the title and thrust of this thread, and a perfect counterpoint to melgross's posts. I enjoy your posts immensely.
I think most people's posts here have been quite logical. No one's going to run Shake on an iMac. Plenty of people have asked about Aperture and Photoshop and Office on iMacs and Mac Book Pros. It makes perfect sense for Apple to prioritize Final Cut Studio, iLife, iWork, and Aperture over Shake, based on the Intel hardware that's been released so far.
There's only one person whose arguments don't hold water here. Any guess?
You argue with anything that's against the idea that Apple is perfect. That's not news.
You have yet to make a coherent argument on anything we've discussed.
You argue with anything that's against the idea that Apple is perfect. That's not news.
Hmmm. Just the other day I was complaining about Apple putting all their apps together in the FCSuite. Hows does that jibe with your comment?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You have yet to make a coherent argument on anything we've discussed.
An intelligent debater is someone who acknowledges his rivals' good points and counters them. Someone who is completely dismissive of all his rivals' points only displays cowardice. Your last two posts in particular have been dismissive in the extreme. I don't see how they contribute to this thread.
To get back on track:
1. Do you think there is a market for running an app like Shake on any currently available, Apple-branded Intel-based hardware?
2. Do you think a two-week delay in Aperture 1.1's release is comparable to Adobe's 12-month wait for CS3?
3. Do you think that the fact that Apple can release major, complex apps like Final Cut Suite in Universal Binary format puts the lie to Adobe's claim that XCode can't handle large applications?
Bikertwin, thanks for your kind notes. As for Melgross and I, as he mentioned, we have come to our own understanding.
I leave it to Melgross and y'all to continue the debate as you see fit. I've discussed my points enough, and again, as Melgross mentioned, we've come to our own understanding offline.
Now, this is not to say I'm gonna lurk and see what else is said on this thread.
Comments
Originally posted by the cool gut
Please let me know which of Apples offerings are you going to run Shake on, the Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or the iMac? Thanks in advance.
Veey funny. so, which of Apple's machines are you going to run the CS3 Suite on? Or the FCP Suite, esp. motion.
Please let me know.
Originally posted by melgross
And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
Apple could say that there is no version of XCode yet that handles large applications like Shake well enough...
Originally posted by noirdesir
Apple could say that there is no version of XCode yet that handles large applications like Shake well enough...
Then that would go for Adobe as well, of course. Which is just what Adobe, and others are saying.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1944730,00.asp
I ran a Photoshop (CS 1 version) bench the other day on my dual 2GHz MacBook Pro, and it didn't seem to be slower than the previous generation PowerBook my coworker has.
Shake is NOT run on laptops generally, so I doubt anybody's losing any sleep over the lack of a UB at this point.
This thread has become Melgross vs. Everyone Else
I think he like those odds, LOL.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I think he like those odds, LOL.
I'm just trying to be fair, and not assigning blame anywhere. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to blame one, then you have to blame the other as well.
There are others here who are laying heavy blame on Adobe, who has been very pro Apple over the years, even as Apple's share of their market slipped significantly. And by pointing out that even Apple can't have all of their programs ready "on time".
That's not blame. It's just a realization of the realities.
I'm ready to let it rest anytime everyone else will.
Particularly the fact that this gives developers a reason to see code they haven't touched in years and do some debugging and feature updates.
I'm not angry at Adobe at all for their projected release of CS3.
But I don't believe its solely Xcode's fault. Adobe should have at the least been able to port parts of Photoshop to Xcode even if it took a long time.
I believe Adobe does have a running universal Photoshop in the lab. It probably isn't yet complete and I'm sure they are adding new features for CS3.
The same for Microsoft. The should have had parts of Office ported to Xcode even if it took awhile.
I can agree in both cases it makes no sense to do that much work just to do more work for a new version.
MS will not release the new Office 2007 for Mac before its released for Windows. Hopefully it will be released at the same time.
Now, Melgross, when confronted with Aperture delayed by two weeks with CS3 planned for a year, you shifted to talking about Shake and then saying well, look, Apple and Adobe are in the same boat.
I don't think it's fair to compare Shake with CS3. The size and nature of the user base of Adobe|Macromedia compared with that of Shake is vastly different. Pros using Shake are happy to go with the PowerMac Quad (and network rendering using PowerMac Quad nodes) for at least another year. By which time only then will Intel have the beef to meet the needs of Shake users.
But for Adobe|Macromedia users, using Intel Macs is at this stage a step backwards from PowerPC Macs because of Rosetta. Benchmarks have shown poorer times, and plugins don't work, etc.
So if we are talking Shake, a Universal Binary one year out is acceptable. If we are talking Adobe|Macromedia, a Univeral Binary one year out is most people would say, not acceptable given that the Intel Macs are very suitable and very efficient for Adobe|Macromedia programs. If they were Universal Binaries.
I suppose I'm just pissed because I'm taking it personally that this kind of leaves Apple in the lurch despite I'm sure Apple giving Adobe|Macromedia and Microsoft at least 1 year's notice.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Nah, it's fun arguing sometimes. Gives these forums some "life" .
Now, Melgross, when confronted with Aperture delayed by two weeks with CS3 planned for a year, you shifted to talking about Shake and then saying well, look, Apple and Adobe are in the same boat.
I don't think it's fair to compare Shake with CS3. The size and nature of the user base of Adobe|Macromedia compared with that of Shake is vastly different. Pros using Shake are happy to go with the PowerMac Quad (and network rendering using PowerMac Quad nodes) for at least another year. By which time only then will Intel have the beef to meet the needs of Shake users.
But for Adobe|Macromedia users, using Intel Macs is at this stage a step backwards from PowerPC Macs because of Rosetta. Benchmarks have shown poorer times, and plugins don't work, etc.
So if we are talking Shake, a Universal Binary one year out is acceptable. If we are talking Adobe|Macromedia, a Univeral Binary one year out is most people would say, not acceptable given that the Intel Macs are very suitable and very efficient for Adobe|Macromedia programs. If they were Universal Binaries.
What you wrote has nothing to do with anything.
It's the nature of the project that determines the time it takes to complete, and test it.
Shame on you.
Originally posted by sunilraman
But I suppose I am coming around and now have some sympathy for the developers that, in the process of making Universal Binaries that process should be integrated in the making of the new version of those programs.
I suppose I'm just pissed because I'm taking it personally that this kind of leaves Apple in the lurch despite I'm sure Apple giving Adobe|Macromedia and Microsoft at least 1 year's notice.
Then give Apple some of the blame for the inadequacy of their tools.
...Shame on you.
Whoa. I'm pulling out of this disagreement. What started off as good-natured banter has descended into name calling. When we said "fuck adobe!" or "fuck apple!" initially there was a bit of sense of humour to it. Now it's all gotten so serious. I must say I'm dissapointed.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
...Shame on you.
Whoa. I'm pulling out of this disagreement. What started off as good-natured banter has descended into name calling. When we said "fuck adobe!" or "fuck apple!" initially there was a bit of sense of humour to it. Now it's all gotten so serious. I must say I'm dissapointed.
It wasn't so serious Sunil. It was just gentle chiding. I didn't call you a name. I was just surprised you would have taken that argument. I don't see you that way.
I can't wait for this further release.
I wrote some months ago that the raw coming from aperture where not bad at all.
As my experience increase, I must say that I am disapointed now, with dark pics.
With dark pics, aperture is terrible : the dark walls are full of white spots.
Apple must fix this, or aperture will be a failure.
Currently I use Aperture like an organizer, but I use ACR 3,3 for all raw files. ACR is much better than aperture.
DPP is not bad, but I don't like the presets style. I want to create my own personal style
So Apple, take your time, but give us :
- a freeze proof software (it freeze a lot of time even on my quad)
- a good raw processor engine
- a good noise reduction software
- a good sharpening tool
- A Chromatic abbertion correction module
- a distorsion correction module
Originally posted by melgross
What you wrote has nothing to do with anything.
Hey, talk about a great way to avoid an intelligent discussion. I'll have to remember that one.
Originally posted by melgross
It's the nature of the project that determines the time it takes to complete, and test it.
That's so vague as to be impossible to contradict. How can anyone argue with a statement like that? sunilraman's post doesn't even contradict it.
Originally posted by melgross
Shame on you.
What a terrible thing to say. Sad, really.
I think what Sunilraman said made quite a lot of sense:
Originally posted by sunilraman
I don't think it's fair to compare Shake with CS3. The size and nature of the user base of Adobe|Macromedia compared with that of Shake is vastly different. Pros using Shake are happy to go with the PowerMac Quad (and network rendering using PowerMac Quad nodes) for at least another year. By which time only then will Intel have the beef to meet the needs of Shake users.
But for Adobe|Macromedia users, using Intel Macs is at this stage a step backwards from PowerPC Macs because of Rosetta. Benchmarks have shown poorer times, and plugins don't work, etc.
So if we are talking Shake, a Universal Binary one year out is acceptable. If we are talking Adobe|Macromedia, a Univeral Binary one year out is most people would say, not acceptable given that the Intel Macs are very suitable and very efficient for Adobe|Macromedia programs. If they were Universal Binaries.
Sunilraman, don't feel bad. You made a perfectly logical and cogent argument, totally relevent to the title and thrust of this thread, and a perfect counterpoint to melgross's posts. I enjoy your posts immensely.
I think most people's posts here have been quite logical. No one's going to run Shake on an iMac. Plenty of people have asked about Aperture and Photoshop and Office on iMacs and Mac Book Pros. It makes perfect sense for Apple to prioritize Final Cut Studio, iLife, iWork, and Aperture over Shake, based on the Intel hardware that's been released so far.
There's only one person whose arguments don't hold water here. Any guess?
Originally posted by bikertwin
Hey, talk about a great way to avoid an intelligent discussion. I'll have to remember that one.
That's so vague as to be impossible to contradict. How can anyone argue with a statement like that? sunilraman's post doesn't even contradict it.
What a terrible thing to say. Sad, really.
I think what Sunilraman said made quite a lot of sense:
Sunilraman, don't feel bad. You made a perfectly logical and cogent argument, totally relevent to the title and thrust of this thread, and a perfect counterpoint to melgross's posts. I enjoy your posts immensely.
I think most people's posts here have been quite logical. No one's going to run Shake on an iMac. Plenty of people have asked about Aperture and Photoshop and Office on iMacs and Mac Book Pros. It makes perfect sense for Apple to prioritize Final Cut Studio, iLife, iWork, and Aperture over Shake, based on the Intel hardware that's been released so far.
There's only one person whose arguments don't hold water here. Any guess?
You argue with anything that's against the idea that Apple is perfect. That's not news.
You have yet to make a coherent argument on anything we've discussed.
Sunil and I have our own understanding.
Originally posted by melgross
You argue with anything that's against the idea that Apple is perfect. That's not news.
Hmmm. Just the other day I was complaining about Apple putting all their apps together in the FCSuite. Hows does that jibe with your comment?
Originally posted by melgross
You have yet to make a coherent argument on anything we've discussed.
An intelligent debater is someone who acknowledges his rivals' good points and counters them. Someone who is completely dismissive of all his rivals' points only displays cowardice. Your last two posts in particular have been dismissive in the extreme. I don't see how they contribute to this thread.
To get back on track:
1. Do you think there is a market for running an app like Shake on any currently available, Apple-branded Intel-based hardware?
2. Do you think a two-week delay in Aperture 1.1's release is comparable to Adobe's 12-month wait for CS3?
3. Do you think that the fact that Apple can release major, complex apps like Final Cut Suite in Universal Binary format puts the lie to Adobe's claim that XCode can't handle large applications?
Thanks for your considered replies.
I leave it to Melgross and y'all to continue the debate as you see fit. I've discussed my points enough, and again, as Melgross mentioned, we've come to our own understanding offline.
Now, this is not to say I'm gonna lurk and see what else is said on this thread.