Adobe: 64-bit Mac Creative Suite apps won't happen till v5.0

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 100
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Shaving 10-12% off my blinding fast Mac (or rather, failing to ADD 10-12%... until CS5) won't kill me. I survived Rosetta, this is nothing



    I'll just save money by skipping CS4 anyway.



    I don't blame Adobe or Apple. Change happens--in this case OS X happened--and sometimes that change is well worth it.



    Adobe had to go with what looked safest--NOT go Cocoa until they had to. Fair enoughL it's a huge task.



    And Apple intended to deliver 64-bit Carbon but then it didn't look practical after all. Apple wasn't lying or keeping secrets, they changed their mind for reasons which we may or may not ever know, but which may have had technical merit. The OS 9 to OS X transition was NOT some little thing.



    It's fun to decide on a "bad guy" and rant, but I won't rush to blindly throw blame at either party, and I won't lose sleep over CS4. I don't think I've processed 37 GIGApixels of image data in my LIFE
  • Reply 22 of 100
    boogabooga Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    I consider myself one of those "top-end graphic artists" and I disagree with your comments. I don't think any design firm is going to change from Mac to PC just so they can run CS4. That would mean buying new fonts, new font utility programs, new production flow, new hardware, and all for what? So we can render a poster a few seconds faster on an Adobe product with probably 3 redundant new options and a new menu system to give the appearance they actually did something to make their software better to justify the $1500 price tag?

    I think Not.

    Systems are so fast now that it doesn't make much of a difference. 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.

    Render time is our 'creative time'... if anything, Hey Adobe... make your crappy apps slower.



    I said 5x-- that's the number Adobe is quoting. You're talking 10s on Windows and a minute on the Mac. Or a minute on Windows and 5 minutes on the Mac.



    It might not cause people to shift en-masse, but if you're already a mixed Mac/PC shop, buying a Mac for Photoshop in the next two years is pretty silly. Buy the Windows PC.



    Adobe isn't going to lose many sales over this, but Apple sure will.
  • Reply 23 of 100
    stevek9stevek9 Posts: 5member
    As usual, insightful, informative and interesting:



    http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits...sody-and-blues
  • Reply 24 of 100
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    that is how long it will be this May since Carbon was revealed.



    They have had 11 years to gear up for a porting.



    Adobe and Microsoft no longer determine the future of Apple in both growth and financial stability.



    Either Adobe ports or sees it's quarterly reports damaged.



    Perhaps the saddest part of it all is that instead of doing some parallel work during those 11 years (like take an hour or two every week to port things over to Cocoa and/or rewrite chunks of code while eating crumpets and sipping tea) they decided to just go all out on their legacy beast without thinking that one day perhaps they will get nailed in the ass HARD.



    Just a few hours a week for 11 years...they'd have something that might look close to being ready to ship today.
  • Reply 25 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    Apple really screwed up here. In 2006 WWDC they promised a 64-bit Carbon and even held sessions on it. Then they remained tight-lipped for a year until 2007 WWDC, where they abruptly cancelled it. If Apple actually communicated with developers and kept their promises, we'd have a 64-bit CS4.



    If Adobe had begun coding for Cocoa 8 YEARS AGO, we'd have more stable, and faster Abobe apps much quicker to market.
  • Reply 26 of 100
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    Certainly Adobe is out there to make money. And for the last several years they've probably been very distracted just trying to keep up with Apple's shifting direction. First the move to Intel meant that they had to switch compilers and IDEs for their entire Macintosh suite, then debug everything for two processors. Now with Apple doing an about-face on Carbon64 support, they have to do another fire drill. It's amazing they get stuff out for the Mac at all, let alone have time to do Mac-specific things with the way Apple treats its developers.



    I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone at Adobe is afflicted by down syndrome. How else could we explain that, after being repeatedly told over and over and over again to move to the Cocoa framework, a company would just blindly keep developing a Carbon version without even starting ANY work on a Cocoa version?



    The "last several years distraction" and "the way Apple treats its developers" bullshit you're trotting out is some funny stuff because Apple has been warning Adobe for 11 years to move to Cocoa.



    If you think Adobe is getting nailed twice unjustly, you need your head examined because had they headed the warning years ago, they'd have a Cocoa port ready before the Intel switch, which would mean that a fairly simple recompile would take care of both PPC and Intel versions. And they'd be ready for 64-bit today.



    Ok...they still would have to create a Cocoa version of Photoshop...but don't tell me you feel sorry for them that they had to port to Intel *and now* they have make a Cocoa version.



    They could have killed 2 birds with one stone. But they chose to take 2 stones to kill a bird.



    The only people disappointed here are the Adobe apologists. I don't give a flying fuck if Adobe releases a 64-bit version of their shit graphics composition app or not.
  • Reply 27 of 100
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    This means that 64-bit Mac apps need to be written to use Cocoa (as Lightroom is) instead of Carbon," he explained. "This means that we'll need to rewrite large parts of Photoshop and its plug-ins (potentially affecting over a million lines of code) to move it from Carbon to Cocoa."



    I thought Apple told developers in the transition to Intel-based Macs that the first thing they would have to do is getting their apps running on Cocoa, and I thought that's why it took two freakin' years for the Adobe Apps to show up as Universal Apps. I also thought Apple was urging developers to transition to Cocoa for their own good as far back as 2001. If Adobe's apps are all still running on Carbon, then what the hell have they been doing these past eight years?
  • Reply 28 of 100
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Who cares...nobody.



    Hmm....
    • Developers who spend a ton of time and money on this....

    • Pro Photoshop users who would dig this (I was actually just working with a 1.2 GB file about an hour ago where I had to close out of the other psd docs I had open and I restarted Photoshop to clear the memory usage to save time)...,

    • The general Mac user should care if developers loose trust in Apple...

    • The geral Mac public when a major developer innovates fo the competing platform before the mac in one of the Macs core business...

    Besides that not too many other people probably...

    ....except potentially the general press who jump on the story and regurgitate it as FUD in Apple.
  • Reply 29 of 100
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shawnathan View Post


    graphic designers do.. for one, me.



    Boo-hoo...64-bit won't matter for a while anyway.
  • Reply 30 of 100
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post


    If Adobe had begun coding for Cocoa 8 YEARS AGO, we'd have more stable, and faster Abobe apps much quicker to market.



    Maybe if Apple made it clear 8 years ago, or even 2 years ago, that Carbon wasn't going to be fully supported that would be true.
  • Reply 31 of 100
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tink View Post


    [*]Developers who spend a ton of time and money on this....



    No...they get paid.



    Quote:

    [*]Pro Photoshop users who would dig this (I was actually just working with a 1.2 GB file about an hour ago where I had to close out of the other psd docs I had open and I restarted Photoshop to clear the memory usage to save time)...,



    No...wrong.



    Quote:

    [*]The general Mac user should care if developers loose trust in Apple...



    I don't think any developers will lose trust in Apple if they reviewed the fact that Apple has been warning everyone to move to Cocoa. And if some lose trust in Apple, GOOD...they're probably the ones that refuse to adapt to change.



    Quote:

    [*]The geral Mac public when a major developer innovates fo the competing platform before the mac in one of the Macs core business...



    O RLY?



    Quote:

    Besides that not too many other people probably...

    ....except potentially the general press who jump on the story and regurgitate it as FUD in Apple.



    Yeah ok.
  • Reply 32 of 100
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Perhaps the saddest part of it all is that instead of doing some parallel work during those 11 years (like take an hour or two every week to port things over to Cocoa and/or rewrite chunks of code while eating crumpets and sipping tea) they decided to just go all out on their legacy beast without thinking that one day perhaps they will get nailed in the ass HARD.



    And how do you know that? How do you know that they haven't been doing some parallel work all along, and the job is STILL big enough that it will take that long to do the rest?



    After all, APPLE hasn't even released any of their pro apps in cocoa/64 bit - you think they've been staring out the window while sipping their tea instead of working on porting?



    Not to mention that 11 years ago it wasn't clear that OSX would catch on or that Apple would stay in business, much less that apple would stick with the cocoa apis. With a company that changes strategy as much as apple, it's probably smart to put off things like porting millions of lines to new api (and language).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone at Adobe is afflicted by down syndrome. How else could we explain that, after being repeatedly told over and over and over again to move to the Cocoa framework, a company would just blindly keep developing a Carbon version without even starting ANY work on a Cocoa version?



    I'll ask it again - if adobe is dumb for not listening to apple and switching to cocoa, what excuse does APPLE have for not switching their apps to cocoa? And why would any third party take apple's advice seriously when apple doesn't even follow their own recommendations?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post


    I thought Apple told developers in the transition to Intel-based Macs that the first thing they would have to do is getting their apps running on Cocoa



    I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the main thing they had to do was transition their apps to XCODE from other dev environments. Carbon was still supported on intel. It had to be, look at all the apple apps that still aren't on cocoa yet.
  • Reply 33 of 100
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the main thing they had to do was transition their apps to XCODE from other dev environments. Carbon was still supported on intel. It had to be, look at all the apple apps that still aren't on cocoa yet.



    You're right, my mistake. Transition to XCode first, not Cocoa.



    Wait, aren't Apple's Pro Apps 64-bit capable? I thought Final Cut Pro and others were.
  • Reply 34 of 100
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tink View Post


    Maybe if Apple made it clear 8 years ago, or even 2 years ago, that Carbon wasn't going to be fully supported that would be true.



    Apple made it clear back in 1997 that Carbon was a 2 year transitional API. They caved due to financial problems.



    They no longer have to cave.



    End of story.
  • Reply 35 of 100
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Perhaps the saddest part of it all is that instead of doing some parallel work during those 11 years (like take an hour or two every week to port things over to Cocoa and/or rewrite chunks of code while eating crumpets and sipping tea) they decided to just go all out on their legacy beast without thinking that one day perhaps they will get nailed in the ass HARD.



    Just a few hours a week for 11 years...they'd have something that might look close to being ready to ship today.



    Hell, they used to contract with NeXT to have an in-house Cocoa team [WebObjects and Openstep ObjC heads] to develop custom applications for their WebObjects and other in-house tools.



    The fact they didn't manage to train their staff is their problem.
  • Reply 36 of 100
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post


    You're right, my mistake. Transition to XCode first, not Cocoa.



    Wait, aren't Apple's Pro Apps 64-bit capable? I thought Final Cut Pro and others were.



    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure none are. As far as I know the only 64 bit app from apple so far is Xcode.



    Personally, I think it's pretty shameful and hypocritical on apple's part. Apps like FCS and particularly Logic can definitely benefit from the extended ram, I'd bet even stuff like iMovie and iDVD could probably as well.



    Apple doesn't even have Aperture 64 bit, and that app is less than 2.5 years old, while Adobe already has a 64 bit version of Lightroom out. Pretty pathetic on apple's part.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Apple made it clear back in 1997 that Carbon was a 2 year transitional API. They caved due to financial problems.



    They no longer have to cave.



    End of story.



    So when is apple going to eat their own dog food (to use a term apple has already applied to OSX)? On the one hand they insist it's transitional and devs should know to switch over, on the other hand they are still releasing virtually all apps on the old api.
  • Reply 37 of 100
    crtaylorcrtaylor Posts: 82member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    Apple wasn't lying or keeping secrets, they changed their mind for reasons which we may or may not ever know, but which may have had technical merit. The OS 9 to OS X transition was NOT some little thing.



    It's fun to decide on a "bad guy" and rant, but I won't rush to blindly throw blame at either party, and I won't lose sleep over CS4. I don't think I've processed 37 GIGApixels of image data in my LIFE



    I think you are absolutely correct. CS3 just came out last year. Why should Adobe rush into creating CS4 anyway? I have been on several art websites, and there has been equally great work turned out using previous versions of Photoshop as there has been with Photoshop CS3. It all comes down to artistic craft. I don't think it is even that fathomable for the average person to work with that much image data anyway!



    Apple is a respectable company and so is Adobe, but sometimes big companies just don't click over the smallest differences. Overall, it has to be up to the consumer what works for them. For me, the 64-bit bells and whistles can wait.
  • Reply 38 of 100
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tink View Post


    Maybe if Apple made it clear 8 years ago, or even 2 years ago, that Carbon wasn't going to be fully supported that would be true.



    I seem to recall Apple always talking highly of Cocoa and that Carbon was just to get your apps ported over quickly and easily but then start porting them to Cocoa...
  • Reply 39 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tink View Post


    Maybe if Apple made it clear 8 years ago, or even 2 years ago, that Carbon wasn't going to be fully supported that would be true.



    Apple made it clear when they released Carbon that it was merely a Stop gap for Mac OS 9 apps to go to Mac OS X. I was at that WWDC, it was clear then.

    Basically what is upsetting people is that it simply reminds everyone that Adobe still has a majority of it API in Classic.
  • Reply 40 of 100
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post


    Apple made it clear when they released Carbon that it was merely a Stop gap for Mac OS 9 apps to go to Mac OS X. I was at that WWDC, it was clear then.

    Basically what is upsetting people is that it simply reminds everyone that Adobe still has a majority of it API in Classic.



    I worked that conference answering tons of questions after Avie and Steve disclosed Carbon. I also was quite amused watching all the Photoshop developers from Adobe studying TIFFany and Create from Stone Design and asking a ton of questions.
Sign In or Register to comment.