I can live without Word on a Mac Pro, at least for a while. But like everyone else who does design for a living, I crave the day when we have a bug free universal version of Dreamweaver on hand, along with Photoshop and siblings, including After Effects. The bug-free part of this equation is almost as great a concern to me as having Intel native apps themselves ... because in at least one obvious respect this will be the first iteration of the products. For those of you who are knowledgeable about recompiling software, are my concerns unfounded? ( I hope so.)
I don't think it is a simple matter of recompile. I think for Office and these apps, all of which were likely made without Xcode it means transitioning their code to a new development environment and different compilers.
maybe someone else can talk about what is involved.
I wonder how much it complicates cross platform development for Adobe. Previously I would think they could do Mac and Win in something like Codewarrior, Now they can't, right? Can a developer speak to this?
I don't know, but six or seven years ago, they made a similar application compiling for both 680x0 and PowerPC processors. I don't know that this is necessarily more OS-based, or what, or if I'm simply talking out my um...
I don't think it is a simple matter of recompile. I think for Office and these apps, all of which were likely made without Xcode it means transitioning their code to a new development environment and different compilers.
maybe someone else can talk about what is involved.
I wonder how much it complicates cross platform development for Adobe. Previously I would think they could do Mac and Win in something like Codewarrior, Now they can't, right? Can a developer speak to this?
It can complicate things a lot if the applications were dependent on Codewarrior. I think the way that Codewarrior worked was it included its own set of interface libraries (GUI toolkit) like X11, Java AWT & Swing, Qt (not quicktime), Cocoa, Carbon (certain frameworks are more than just GUI toolkits) etc. GUI toolkits are good for cutting down the work of a programmer but they can make code harder to port if the APIs aren't there.
This is why it's easier for Apple to include the X11 app than get developers to port X11 apps to use Cocoa. With the lack of interface libraries in Codewarrior (not sure if that's through license restrictions or code incompatibility), this means that the Adobe software is going to have to undergo some sort of interface rewrite.
I suspect the biggest task at hand is getting new developments into CS3 to make it sellable on both platforms as well as optimizing it fully for both x86 and ppc architectures. The trouble here is that Codewarrior used the Motorola compilers which are better than the GCC that Xcode uses.
I don't think that's a huge issue because Adobe will now see that PPC is dead for Mac users so optimizing for it is not a priority and the Intel compilers will be able to plug into Xcode and they make better x86 code than GCC too.
The things that Adobe has on its plate right now are merging Macromedia's products with their own to make some really killer apps, optimizing these apps for x86 Mac and PC and probably looking at ways to take advantage of frameworks in OS X and Vista like hardware acceleration. It's not unreasonable to expect a few months of development for a major suite of apps like that.
It's just that they should've started sooner and Apple should've fixed Xcode quicker. It was pretty bad at the beginning. The difference between Xcode and Codewarrior was like OS 9 and OS X in terms of snappiness.
Ok so this is what I figured. It sounds like a *lot* of work. And think of what it does to their workflow. If they could make both Windows and OSX PPC in CW and now must use Xcode for Mac Universal and CW for Windows, it just does not sound very good. I bet we will start to see some differences come in between the Mac and Win apps - which would suck.
Seems like more than a few months of work. Sounds like up to a year. i doubt these ship as soon as people hope and it will take a while for them to settle down - if they ever really do. Willing to bet we see a differentiation start in the same way we do for MS Office.
Ok so this is what I figured. It sounds like a *lot* of work. And think of what it does to their workflow. If they could make both Windows and OSX PPC in CW and now must use Xcode for Mac Universal and CW for Windows, it just does not sound very good. I bet we will start to see some differences come in between the Mac and Win apps - which would suck.
Seems like more than a few months of work. Sounds like up to a year. i doubt these ship as soon as people hope and it will take a while for them to settle down - if they ever really do. Willing to bet we see a differentiation start in the same way we do for MS Office.
The key for Apple is to continue innovating, to continue receiving high marks in customer satisfaction, to continue as a platform for the creative individual / office, to continue to release cutting edge hardware, and to continue the slow but (I think) inevitable march toward greater market share. When Apple-generated apps like Keynote so vastly — and simply — trump the stuff produced by Redmond, people take note and often make the switch. The folks at Adobe know that the Mac market is big and will likely grow. As long as Apple continues to flourish, Adobe will be loathe to allow for much product differentiation.
The other problem for Adobe is they've got Windows Vista to contend with at the same time as moving development to XCode on OSX.
Adobe's applications generally use very, very little of the operating system's capabilities. On Windows XP and previous, this didn't really matter as it was technically limited with very few graphics APIs that would be useful for things like Photoshop and Illustrator (No, DirectX isn't useful).
On OSX, we've seen gradual improvements in the graphics API such that you can do realtime effects with the OS now.
Adobe's applications, using the CPU to do everything were looking like they belonged to the previous century on OSX.
With Windows Vista, they've got similar graphics functionality in the OS now as in OSX. It remains to be seen if Adobe use it.
With the user interfaces diverging from the classic Adobe style in both Windows and OSX it'll also be interesting to see if they keep their own UI library and maintain cross platform similarity or use more OS specific features and design.
Of course, we might just see them ship a warmed over CS2. Most people can't tell the difference between Photoshop 7 and CS2 so they'd be changing a habit of a lifetime.
Same goes for Microsoft and Office too.
Both need to step up to the plate and use the OS functionality instead of the slow compatibility frameworks they've relied on in the past.
The other problem for Adobe is they've got Windows Vista to contend with at the same time as moving development to XCode on OSX.
Adobe's applications generally use very, very little of the operating system's capabilities. On Windows XP and previous, this didn't really matter as it was technically limited with very few graphics APIs that would be useful for things like Photoshop and Illustrator (No, DirectX isn't useful).
On OSX, we've seen gradual improvements in the graphics API such that you can do realtime effects with the OS now.
Adobe's applications, using the CPU to do everything were looking like they belonged to the previous century on OSX.
With Windows Vista, they've got similar graphics functionality in the OS now as in OSX. It remains to be seen if Adobe use it.
With the user interfaces diverging from the classic Adobe style in both Windows and OSX it'll also be interesting to see if they keep their own UI library and maintain cross platform similarity or use more OS specific features and design.
Of course, we might just see them ship a warmed over CS2. Most people can't tell the difference between Photoshop 7 and CS2 so they'd be changing a habit of a lifetime.
Same goes for Microsoft and Office too.
Both need to step up to the plate and use the OS functionality instead of the slow compatibility frameworks they've relied on in the past.
Does the move to 64 bit platforms add any significant problems to Adobe's development cycle?
How about the move to dual core processors?
Just wondering if maybe we are seeing a lot stuff come at the software developers all at once coupled with consumers who expect it all to work instanteously.
And besides, isn't Adobe's product dev cycle usually 18 months?
Comments
2: Steve Jobs is also gonna want to meet with me on a regular basis to find out what other business deals and design ideas I have for him.
3: CS3 will be out earlier then expected.
4: None of the above.
maybe someone else can talk about what is involved.
I wonder how much it complicates cross platform development for Adobe. Previously I would think they could do Mac and Win in something like Codewarrior, Now they can't, right? Can a developer speak to this?
I don't think it is a simple matter of recompile. I think for Office and these apps, all of which were likely made without Xcode it means transitioning their code to a new development environment and different compilers.
maybe someone else can talk about what is involved.
I wonder how much it complicates cross platform development for Adobe. Previously I would think they could do Mac and Win in something like Codewarrior, Now they can't, right? Can a developer speak to this?
It can complicate things a lot if the applications were dependent on Codewarrior. I think the way that Codewarrior worked was it included its own set of interface libraries (GUI toolkit) like X11, Java AWT & Swing, Qt (not quicktime), Cocoa, Carbon (certain frameworks are more than just GUI toolkits) etc. GUI toolkits are good for cutting down the work of a programmer but they can make code harder to port if the APIs aren't there.
This is why it's easier for Apple to include the X11 app than get developers to port X11 apps to use Cocoa. With the lack of interface libraries in Codewarrior (not sure if that's through license restrictions or code incompatibility), this means that the Adobe software is going to have to undergo some sort of interface rewrite.
I suspect the biggest task at hand is getting new developments into CS3 to make it sellable on both platforms as well as optimizing it fully for both x86 and ppc architectures. The trouble here is that Codewarrior used the Motorola compilers which are better than the GCC that Xcode uses.
I don't think that's a huge issue because Adobe will now see that PPC is dead for Mac users so optimizing for it is not a priority and the Intel compilers will be able to plug into Xcode and they make better x86 code than GCC too.
The things that Adobe has on its plate right now are merging Macromedia's products with their own to make some really killer apps, optimizing these apps for x86 Mac and PC and probably looking at ways to take advantage of frameworks in OS X and Vista like hardware acceleration. It's not unreasonable to expect a few months of development for a major suite of apps like that.
It's just that they should've started sooner and Apple should've fixed Xcode quicker. It was pretty bad at the beginning. The difference between Xcode and Codewarrior was like OS 9 and OS X in terms of snappiness.
Seems like more than a few months of work. Sounds like up to a year. i doubt these ship as soon as people hope and it will take a while for them to settle down - if they ever really do. Willing to bet we see a differentiation start in the same way we do for MS Office.
Ok so this is what I figured. It sounds like a *lot* of work. And think of what it does to their workflow. If they could make both Windows and OSX PPC in CW and now must use Xcode for Mac Universal and CW for Windows, it just does not sound very good. I bet we will start to see some differences come in between the Mac and Win apps - which would suck.
Seems like more than a few months of work. Sounds like up to a year. i doubt these ship as soon as people hope and it will take a while for them to settle down - if they ever really do. Willing to bet we see a differentiation start in the same way we do for MS Office.
The key for Apple is to continue innovating, to continue receiving high marks in customer satisfaction, to continue as a platform for the creative individual / office, to continue to release cutting edge hardware, and to continue the slow but (I think) inevitable march toward greater market share. When Apple-generated apps like Keynote so vastly — and simply — trump the stuff produced by Redmond, people take note and often make the switch. The folks at Adobe know that the Mac market is big and will likely grow. As long as Apple continues to flourish, Adobe will be loathe to allow for much product differentiation.
Adobe's applications generally use very, very little of the operating system's capabilities. On Windows XP and previous, this didn't really matter as it was technically limited with very few graphics APIs that would be useful for things like Photoshop and Illustrator (No, DirectX isn't useful).
On OSX, we've seen gradual improvements in the graphics API such that you can do realtime effects with the OS now.
Adobe's applications, using the CPU to do everything were looking like they belonged to the previous century on OSX.
With Windows Vista, they've got similar graphics functionality in the OS now as in OSX. It remains to be seen if Adobe use it.
With the user interfaces diverging from the classic Adobe style in both Windows and OSX it'll also be interesting to see if they keep their own UI library and maintain cross platform similarity or use more OS specific features and design.
Of course, we might just see them ship a warmed over CS2. Most people can't tell the difference between Photoshop 7 and CS2 so they'd be changing a habit of a lifetime.
Same goes for Microsoft and Office too.
Both need to step up to the plate and use the OS functionality instead of the slow compatibility frameworks they've relied on in the past.
1. add new features, since CS3 is a major update
2. integrate the newly bought apps in CS
3. build universal apps of all their apps, incl. Macromedia's, and optimising for Vista as well.
It wouldn't surpirse me if this will be the most buggy upgrade since Adobe's exsitence, and if it wasn't: hats off.
The other problem for Adobe is they've got Windows Vista to contend with at the same time as moving development to XCode on OSX.
Adobe's applications generally use very, very little of the operating system's capabilities. On Windows XP and previous, this didn't really matter as it was technically limited with very few graphics APIs that would be useful for things like Photoshop and Illustrator (No, DirectX isn't useful).
On OSX, we've seen gradual improvements in the graphics API such that you can do realtime effects with the OS now.
Adobe's applications, using the CPU to do everything were looking like they belonged to the previous century on OSX.
With Windows Vista, they've got similar graphics functionality in the OS now as in OSX. It remains to be seen if Adobe use it.
With the user interfaces diverging from the classic Adobe style in both Windows and OSX it'll also be interesting to see if they keep their own UI library and maintain cross platform similarity or use more OS specific features and design.
Of course, we might just see them ship a warmed over CS2. Most people can't tell the difference between Photoshop 7 and CS2 so they'd be changing a habit of a lifetime.
Same goes for Microsoft and Office too.
Both need to step up to the plate and use the OS functionality instead of the slow compatibility frameworks they've relied on in the past.
Does the move to 64 bit platforms add any significant problems to Adobe's development cycle?
How about the move to dual core processors?
Just wondering if maybe we are seeing a lot stuff come at the software developers all at once coupled with consumers who expect it all to work instanteously.
And besides, isn't Adobe's product dev cycle usually 18 months?