Photoshop Lightroom 2 released as Adobe's first 64-bit Mac app

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    On another note, if anybody can single out any major 64-bit native applications, I would love to hear about it.



    Mathematica 5.2 released in 2005 supported 64-bit PPC under Tiger. Mathematica 6 dropped 64-bit PPC but added 64-bit Intel mode for both Tiger and Leopard. I wouldn't be surprised if Mathematica was the first major 64-bit app, since the lack of 64-bit GUI in Tiger isn't an issue for this type of program since it spins of number crunching threads anyways that can be made 64-bit.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is not 64-bit native! Neither is Microsoft Windows Vista x64.



    What makes you say that? Windows XP x64 and Vista x64 are actually more 64-bit than OS X since it runs in 64-bit mode for both the kernel space and the user space while Leopard only allows 64-bit mode in the user space since the kernel is still 32-bit. Snow Leopard is supposed to bring a 64-bit kernel at which point OS X will become "fully" 64-bit.
  • Reply 22 of 34
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Nowhere yet, because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe in porting their pro apps to Cocoa, all the released versions of Pro Apps (except maybe Aperture) are Carbon.



    "If you plan to modify your application to use 64-bit addressing, you may need to adopt standard data types that can be used identically in both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. You also need to be aware that the APIs used to implement a Carbon user interface—menus, windows, views, toolbars, navigation dialogs, and so on—are generally not available. If you want to create a 64-bit application, you need to use Cocoa to implement its user interface.



    Re "…because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe… You make it as if developing software is a no-brainer. Since nobody has done much that we can actually use, it is quite possible that it is difficult, expensive, and/or not ready for marketing.



    Interesting that not many could come up with native 64-bit applications and only a couple challenged my statement that Vista, for example did not fill the bill. To those that did, i.e., Minderbender and Itcommander.data, you were absolutely right. My Point? Not many really know what they are talking about, and by the activity on this blog, not many really care.



    Incidentally, we have been following this site http://www.64xsoft.com/ for some time. Anybody that has a better source reference, it would be appreciative.



    An earlier point was whether anybody was aware of any major 64-bit applications. Certainly from 64Xsoft, there are very few what we would call "major".
  • Reply 23 of 34
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Re "…because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe… You make it as if developing software is a no-brainer. Since nobody has done much that we can actually use, it is quite possible that it is difficult, expensive, and/or not ready for marketing.



    The problem that I was trying to address is that there are plenty of Apple fans that ragged on Adobe for not going to Cocoa as if Adobe is trying to hold back the Mac platform, but conveniently ignore that several of Apple's own apps of similar caliber and complexity doesn't stand up to the same standard.



    I'm not saying it's easy, but both companies did have about ten years to make such a transition re: Carbon -> Cocoa
  • Reply 24 of 34
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The problem that I was trying to address is that there are plenty of Apple fans that ragged on Adobe for not going to Cocoa as if Adobe is trying to hold back the Mac platform, but conveniently ignore that several of Apple's own apps of similar caliber and complexity doesn't stand up to the same standard.



    I'm not saying it's easy, but both companies did have about ten years to make such a transition re: Carbon -> Cocoa



    JeffDM, I am not sure if I would call anybody an Apple fan for accusing any company, particularly with Adobe's history with Apple of holding back the Mac platform.



    I would say that it is the combination of being difficult, expensive and limited marketability that is seemingly causing the delay. Equally important, is the fact that there are so other variables that drive or sway the opportunity. One being that virtually every major player in this industry could be categorized as the chicken, egg or both. Which comes, or needs to come first, only She knows, and He is not telling.
  • Reply 25 of 34
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    JeffDM, I am not sure if I would call anybody an Apple fan for accusing any company, particularly with Adobe's history with Apple of holding back the Mac platform.



    I am pretty sure you have mistaken what I said, you're making associations that I don't think I made. That's not why I'm calling them Apple fans. And I don't consider the (IMO) very distant past here. Anyone that's holding gripes about something that Adobe did a decade or more ago just needs to let go.



    That misses my point, but the part of your post that I snipped out is kind of a long form of my original point, before getting sidetracked.
  • Reply 26 of 34
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Re "?because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe? You make it as if developing software is a no-brainer. Since nobody has done much that we can actually use, it is quite possible that it is difficult, expensive, and/or not ready for marketing.



    I think the point is that Apple has hyped the heck out of 64 bit, and given customers the impression that developers should all be jumping on the bandwagon...but they have yet to do it themselves. Their failure to do it with their own apps sure makes it look like the 64/Cocoa transition is way harder than they have made it out to be (and it sure looks like it's harder to do on OSX than on windows). How can Apple expect third parties to do it if they can't do it themselves, with all their in-house knowledge and proprietary info?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    An earlier point was whether anybody was aware of any major 64-bit applications. Certainly from 64Xsoft, there are very few what we would call "major".



    I can only think of two I'd call major on OSX - Lightroom and Mathematica.



    On the windows side there are considerably more - Nuendo, Cubase, Sonar, and Gigastudio 4 (recently discontinued) just on the audio side. There are also a number of 64 bit native plugins, such as from Vienna and East West.



    CS4 will be 64 bit on windows, further expanding the list of apps that are 64 bit on windows and 32 on mac.



    To give you an idea of the vast difference in the 64 bit timeline between windows and mac, the initial Sonar 64 beta was released to the public in January 2005. Windows guys have been using 64 bit apps for years, and there are still barely any on mac.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I think the point is that Apple has hyped the heck out of 64 bit, and given customers the impression that developers should all be jumping on the bandwagon...but they have yet to do it themselves. Their failure to do it with their own apps sure makes it look like the 64/Cocoa transition is way harder than they have made it out to be (and it sure looks like it's harder to do on OSX than on windows). How can Apple expect third parties to do it if they can't do it themselves, with all their in-house knowledge and proprietary info?



    Here is a good article by Jeff Schewe at Adobe PhotoShop News: http://photoshopnews.com/2008/04/08/...p-cs4-for-mac/



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I can only think of two I'd call major on OSX - Lightroom and Mathematica.



    On the windows side there are considerably more - Nuendo, Cubase, Sonar, and Gigastudio 4 (recently discontinued) just on the audio side. There are also a number of 64 bit native plugins, such as from Vienna and East West.



    CS4 will be 64 bit on windows, further expanding the list of apps that are 64 bit on windows and 32 on mac.



    To give you an idea of the vast difference in the 64 bit timeline between windows and mac, the initial Sonar 64 beta was released to the public in January 2005. Windows guys have been using 64 bit apps for years, and there are still barely any on mac.



    Looking for major 64-bit apps
  • Reply 28 of 34
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Looking for major 64-bit apps



    I thought Cubase was a major app, at least in pro audio.
  • Reply 29 of 34
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Here is a good article by Jeff Schewe at Adobe PhotoShop News: http://photoshopnews.com/2008/04/08/...p-cs4-for-mac/



    Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about. There are a number of bumps in the road on the OSX side that don't exist on the windows side.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Looking for major 64-bit apps



    That's exactly what I listed. Those are most of the biggest audio apps available, on a par with Logic Studio (if not bigger - the only audio app that may be bigger than these is probably Pro Tools). Despite what some may think, the world doesn't revolve around graphic design.
  • Reply 30 of 34
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.



    Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?



    In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.



    Expect these to be Cocoa 64 bit when 10.6 is released.
  • Reply 31 of 34
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Expect these to be Cocoa 64 bit when 10.6 is released.



    I'd love to see that but I'm not holding my breath. Word has it that the head Logic developer has been telling users at tradeshows that updating Logic to 64 bit would cut performance in half, so they have no plans to do it. I'm hoping that's wrong, but based on Apple's development habits in the past, it wouldn't surprise me.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    akacakac Posts: 512member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.



    Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?



    In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.



    Agreed - where are the 64-bit versions of Apple Apps? They are in the same boat as Adobe. Cocoa vs Carbon.



    But the last part - no, its far easier to move to 64-bit Cocoa from 32-bit Cocoa than it is from 32-bit Win32 to 64-bit Win32. Win32 64-bit is a lot more work. The issue with Carbon 64-bit is simply that it doesn't exist.



    Its as if Microsoft said - there is no Win64 - just .NET 64. So any Win32 apps you write have to be converted to .NET first before you can go 64-bit.
  • Reply 33 of 34
    akacakac Posts: 512member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    Yes, because using Cocoa makes cross platform coding more difficult. Under Carbon, programmers can use C++ code and keep much of it the same over both platforms. With Cocoa, they have to use objective C (yeah, I know, they can still do some things in C++) which means the mac version necessarily is more different than the windows version.



    Not really. Yes, a few years ago that was more the case but the truth is that for any app that is written for both Windows and Mac OS - Carbon or Cocoa - the UI layer is going to be written native for that platform.



    So both Cocoa and Carbon are in the same boat there. If I have a Windows app I can move all the underlying code to either Carbon or Cocoa and then write the UI layer in Carbon or Cocoa. The thing is Carbon was easier to do only because Carbon is a procedural API like Win32 is and as such you're just learning a new API, not new concepts. Cocoa requires learning a more elegant OO design and using different design patterns. And as such it has a higher learning curve - but not too bad if you go about it the right way - i.e. not learning Cocoa as your major first app.



    But the fact is that if you are porting from Windows or working with a cross-platform app from scratch, if you already know Cocoa then its actually going to be easier to write that cross platform code in Cocoa than it would be in Carbon.





    And yes, I know what I'm talking about - I work in both systems.
  • Reply 34 of 34
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Akac View Post


    But the last part - no, its far easier to move to 64-bit Cocoa from 32-bit Cocoa than it is from 32-bit Win32 to 64-bit Win32. Win32 64-bit is a lot more work. The issue with Carbon 64-bit is simply that it doesn't exist.



    And that's exactly why it's a pain on the OSX side. The vast majority of developers, particularly those with big apps that have been around for years, have their code in carbon, not cocoa.



    It doesn't matter how easy the transition from cocoa 32 is if you're on carbon.



    And the word directly from many developers is that the 64 bit transition is easier on windows. The number of 64 bit apps on each platform would seem to back that up.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Akac View Post


    Not really. Yes, a few years ago that was more the case but the truth is that for any app that is written for both Windows and Mac OS - Carbon or Cocoa - the UI layer is going to be written native for that platform.



    So both Cocoa and Carbon are in the same boat there. If I have a Windows app I can move all the underlying code to either Carbon or Cocoa and then write the UI layer in Carbon or Cocoa. The thing is Carbon was easier to do only because Carbon is a procedural API like Win32 is and as such you're just learning a new API, not new concepts. Cocoa requires learning a more elegant OO design and using different design patterns. And as such it has a higher learning curve - but not too bad if you go about it the right way - i.e. not learning Cocoa as your major first app.



    But the fact is that if you are porting from Windows or working with a cross-platform app from scratch, if you already know Cocoa then its actually going to be easier to write that cross platform code in Cocoa than it would be in Carbon.



    As you say, Cocoa requires new concepts and design patterns, and it's a higher learning curve. That's more work for devs. Maybe if you're starting from scratch, it's easier to create code that will be fine in Cocoa and on the windows side. But any app with lots of existing code requires lots of rewriting and either changing things on the windows side as well (which devs generally don't want to do), or ending up with code that is more different on the two platforms than it used to be.



    Most devs don't write their code keeping in mind what will end up on OSX (at least not yet), they write the windows code the way they want to, then port it. For them, cocoa is an obstacle more than a help.
Sign In or Register to comment.