Adobe has done an admirable job in keeping up with the OS, architecture, and development tools changes that have been thrust upon them in the past eight years. When pushed to change, they build it into their next upgrade cycle, instead of retrofitting changes into previous releases. The have a monstrously large code base to support across two platforms. We should be grateful to Adobe for helping keep the Mac platform alive, because the Mac would have likely died without continued support from Adobe. Fortunately, I think this last change should be the last major development upheaval for them to deal with for some time.
Adobe has done an admirable job in keeping up with the OS, architecture, and development tools changes that have been thrust upon them in the past eight years. When pushed to change, they build it into their next upgrade cycle, instead of retrofitting changes into previous releases. The have a monstrously large code base to support across two platforms. We should be grateful to Adobe for helping keep the Mac platform alive, because the Mac would have likely died without continued support from Adobe. Fortunately, I think this last change should be the last major development upheaval for them to deal with for some time.
Nonsense.
Adobe hasn't done anything "to keep the Mac platform alive." Adobe knows fully well that withdrawing the CS franchise from the Mac would slit its own throat. Even Photoshop wouldn't be safe. Between Apple, Quark and Microsoft, Adobe's graphic apps would wither if they were solely available on the Windows platform.
And their "monstrously large code base" is entirely their fault. They choose to maintain one large code base, building their own graphic sub-systems and ignoring either platform's strengths.
If they had switched to Cocoa years ago (like everyone begged them to), Photoshop CS4 would be 64-bit and wouldn't look like an alien which doesn't belong on either the Mac or Windows.
Adobe knows fully well that withdrawing the CS franchise from the Mac would slit its own throat. Even Photoshop wouldn't be safe. Between Apple, Quark and Microsoft, Adobe's graphic apps would wither if they were solely available on the Windows platform.
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
I'd expect that we (Mac-based designer-types) would settle for using the last version of Photoshop that does run on Macs (and/or whatever alternative do exist) and the designer + dev community would light up to start producing an alternative. Which, itself, is a situation Adobe would prefer to avoid (if a real alternative were developed for Macs, it probably wouldn't be long before it was expanded into the Windows world).
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
The problem is Microsoft is elbowing its way into the Creative software space too, that's why Adobe would eventually whither away. They would lose the Mac platform and then they would be attacked from all sides (Microsoft, Quark etc) once they were Windows only.
This doesn't mean Apple is abandoning Carbon or a variety of other new APIs that are similarly procedural, C language APIs. The new (in Leopard) Core Text is defined as part of Carbon, and Cocoa provides an object oriented wrapper for it in the Cocoa Text System. Core Video, QuickTime, and Quartz lie outside the definitions of Carbon and Cocoa, and Apple presents dual Cocoa and Carbon interfaces for working with these.
Rather than the removal of Carbon, Apple's move to Cocoa in Snow Leopard is a consolidation of future efforts, starting with the user interface. More effort has gone recently into making new Cocoa 'kits' than in building entirely new Carbon APIs. The QTKit, PDFKit, and Core Animation are all examples of new, recommended Cocoa tools for doing things that are easier and more powerful than building from scratch in Carbon.
Objective-C is a superset of the C Programming Language. To lose the C would be to kill Objective-C. This isn't C++ which thinks it's a better, more complete C.
Objective-C interfaces into Core Text while low level algorithms for Text handling in C persist is the point of Objective-C and it's relationship with C. I urge people who write articles on Cocoa to first learn Objective-C. Otherwise, you show a lack of understanding that is critical to the purpose behind Cocoa and the Objective-C MVC/KVC models of software development.
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
Wishfulfillment. Photoshop filetypes are recognized even in GIMP and their availablity to Apple, akin to Word documents and Illustrator documents, etc., no longer create barriers to entry for competitors.
Don't be surprised if Apple comes out with a competitor to Photoshop that provides a better workflow than Adobe's flagship application.
Apple will give them time to get a port over, but if they continue to lag it behind there will be competition.
Adobe hasn't done anything "to keep the Mac platform alive."...
...their "monstrously large code base" is entirely their fault. They choose to maintain one large code base, building their own graphic sub-systems and ignoring either platform's strengths.
If they had switched to Cocoa years ago (like everyone begged them to), Photoshop CS4 would be 64-bit and wouldn't look like an alien which doesn't belong on either the Mac or Windows.
Er... If they took direct advantage of OS X tech then they would have TWO monstrously large code bases (which is what Cocoa means to any multiplatform developer from now on). As they are right now, they have sort of one and a half. And bypassing the OS here and there and doing their own thing is what allows them to produce some features that OS X isn't supplying.
Frankly, it is a bit difficult to accept being forced into porting your biggest apps to Cocoa when it means nearly duplicating your code writing efforts (including testing, optimizing, etc.) in an IDE not proven in projects of such scale when Apple hasn't dared yet to port any of their own. Adobe is going to be the guinea pig here.
And please don't think this is just Adobe and Microsoft: it is Autodesk (MacMaya64 is going to be suuuch fun for them to do? if they decide to), Luxology, NewTek and a long etc. of multiplatformers.
v 1.3 is just around the corner and it's bringing big performance increases.
It's also entirely Cocoa and uses Apple's Core-stuff.
Yes...Pixelmator will undoubtedly match most of Photoshop's important feature by this time next year. Some will argue that some of the underwhelming Photoshop features don't exist in Pixelmator, but I will argue that they don't belong in Pixelmator because they're, *gasp*, total garbage.
Pixelmator excels at live-feedback, something Photoshop had much trouble with. Although I haven't looked at CS4's GPU-aided rendering, I very much doubt it matches Pixelmator's dynamic feedback when applying filters, using the magic wand, the paintbucket, gradients, etc.
Hey, Adobe, if you want to create your own interface paradigms, build your own effin' OS.
Be careful what you wish for, Adobe seems to be developing its own "environment" along with their own programming languages.
Now that Apple has a solid cash reserve, it's time for them to invest it in the obvious and buy Adobe. And if they do, I hope SJ won't screw things up by turning the CS Suite into a cheesy iHome suite for his kids or something.
The "shadows behind windows" are one of the most helpful and well-liked features of OS-X and you are the first I have ever heard arguing for them being removed.
Those shadows are so subtle as to barely be perceptible. As such, they aren't very helpful to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
1b) Because the product is now sold to large institutions and companies as opposed to end users, it starts acquiring all kinds of extra features as the price/value proposition is what's being hyped in the marketing materials. You get an "all features plus the kitchen sink" approach that makes the program all things to all people, except it has the side effect of making it almost useless to a user with a focussed set of tasks.
The new version allows the user interface to be modified, so it can be tuned to tasks such that the user has access to exactly what they need, when they need it.
Objective-C is a superset of the C Programming Language. To lose the C would be to kill Objective-C. This isn't C++ which thinks it's a better, more complete C.
Objective-C interfaces into Core Text while low level algorithms for Text handling in C persist is the point of Objective-C and it's relationship with C. I urge people who write articles on Cocoa to first learn Objective-C. Otherwise, you show a lack of understanding that is critical to the purpose behind Cocoa and the Objective-C MVC/KVC models of software development.
Can you highlight what in the article you were taking issue with? It's not obvious from your quote. What error or contradiction are you seeing?
Comments
Adobe has done an admirable job in keeping up with the OS, architecture, and development tools changes that have been thrust upon them in the past eight years. When pushed to change, they build it into their next upgrade cycle, instead of retrofitting changes into previous releases. The have a monstrously large code base to support across two platforms. We should be grateful to Adobe for helping keep the Mac platform alive, because the Mac would have likely died without continued support from Adobe. Fortunately, I think this last change should be the last major development upheaval for them to deal with for some time.
Nonsense.
Adobe hasn't done anything "to keep the Mac platform alive." Adobe knows fully well that withdrawing the CS franchise from the Mac would slit its own throat. Even Photoshop wouldn't be safe. Between Apple, Quark and Microsoft, Adobe's graphic apps would wither if they were solely available on the Windows platform.
And their "monstrously large code base" is entirely their fault. They choose to maintain one large code base, building their own graphic sub-systems and ignoring either platform's strengths.
If they had switched to Cocoa years ago (like everyone begged them to), Photoshop CS4 would be 64-bit and wouldn't look like an alien which doesn't belong on either the Mac or Windows.
Adobe knows fully well that withdrawing the CS franchise from the Mac would slit its own throat. Even Photoshop wouldn't be safe. Between Apple, Quark and Microsoft, Adobe's graphic apps would wither if they were solely available on the Windows platform.
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
Not after Apple announces their own app to replace Photoshop, large pieces of which already exist in Aperture, Colorsync and the FCP suite.
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
I'd expect that we (Mac-based designer-types) would settle for using the last version of Photoshop that does run on Macs (and/or whatever alternative do exist) and the designer + dev community would light up to start producing an alternative. Which, itself, is a situation Adobe would prefer to avoid (if a real alternative were developed for Macs, it probably wouldn't be long before it was expanded into the Windows world).
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
The problem is Microsoft is elbowing its way into the Creative software space too, that's why Adobe would eventually whither away. They would lose the Mac platform and then they would be attacked from all sides (Microsoft, Quark etc) once they were Windows only.
This doesn't mean Apple is abandoning Carbon or a variety of other new APIs that are similarly procedural, C language APIs. The new (in Leopard) Core Text is defined as part of Carbon, and Cocoa provides an object oriented wrapper for it in the Cocoa Text System. Core Video, QuickTime, and Quartz lie outside the definitions of Carbon and Cocoa, and Apple presents dual Cocoa and Carbon interfaces for working with these.
Rather than the removal of Carbon, Apple's move to Cocoa in Snow Leopard is a consolidation of future efforts, starting with the user interface. More effort has gone recently into making new Cocoa 'kits' than in building entirely new Carbon APIs. The QTKit, PDFKit, and Core Animation are all examples of new, recommended Cocoa tools for doing things that are easier and more powerful than building from scratch in Carbon.
Objective-C is a superset of the C Programming Language. To lose the C would be to kill Objective-C. This isn't C++ which thinks it's a better, more complete C.
Objective-C interfaces into Core Text while low level algorithms for Text handling in C persist is the point of Objective-C and it's relationship with C. I urge people who write articles on Cocoa to first learn Objective-C. Otherwise, you show a lack of understanding that is critical to the purpose behind Cocoa and the Objective-C MVC/KVC models of software development.
I'm pretty sure if Photoshop was available on Windows only, designers would just buy PCs...
Wishfulfillment. Photoshop filetypes are recognized even in GIMP and their availablity to Apple, akin to Word documents and Illustrator documents, etc., no longer create barriers to entry for competitors.
Don't be surprised if Apple comes out with a competitor to Photoshop that provides a better workflow than Adobe's flagship application.
Apple will give them time to get a port over, but if they continue to lag it behind there will be competition.
Nonsense.
Adobe hasn't done anything "to keep the Mac platform alive."...
...their "monstrously large code base" is entirely their fault. They choose to maintain one large code base, building their own graphic sub-systems and ignoring either platform's strengths.
If they had switched to Cocoa years ago (like everyone begged them to), Photoshop CS4 would be 64-bit and wouldn't look like an alien which doesn't belong on either the Mac or Windows.
Er... If they took direct advantage of OS X tech then they would have TWO monstrously large code bases (which is what Cocoa means to any multiplatform developer from now on). As they are right now, they have sort of one and a half. And bypassing the OS here and there and doing their own thing is what allows them to produce some features that OS X isn't supplying.
Frankly, it is a bit difficult to accept being forced into porting your biggest apps to Cocoa when it means nearly duplicating your code writing efforts (including testing, optimizing, etc.) in an IDE not proven in projects of such scale when Apple hasn't dared yet to port any of their own. Adobe is going to be the guinea pig here.
And please don't think this is just Adobe and Microsoft: it is Autodesk (MacMaya64 is going to be suuuch fun for them to do? if they decide to), Luxology, NewTek and a long etc. of multiplatformers.
Don't be surprised if Apple comes out with a competitor to Photoshop that provides a better workflow than Adobe's flagship application.
Apple will give them time to get a port over, but if they continue to lag it behind there will be competition.
If it's Mac-only competitiion, it won't get them anywhere.
If it's Mac-only competitiion, it won't get them anywhere.
Did your crystal ball tell you this?
Welcome aboard. I like the bubbly scroll bars, too.
Count me in too, the bubbly scroll bars RULES !
Ever tried this out?
Pixelmator
v 1.3 is just around the corner and it's bringing big performance increases.
It's also entirely Cocoa and uses Apple's Core-stuff.
TO ALL THE PEOPLE UNHAPPY WITH PHOTOSHOP:
Ever tried this out?
Pixelmator
v 1.3 is just around the corner and it's bringing big performance increases.
It's also entirely Cocoa and uses Apple's Core-stuff.
Yes...Pixelmator will undoubtedly match most of Photoshop's important feature by this time next year. Some will argue that some of the underwhelming Photoshop features don't exist in Pixelmator, but I will argue that they don't belong in Pixelmator because they're, *gasp*, total garbage.
Pixelmator excels at live-feedback, something Photoshop had much trouble with. Although I haven't looked at CS4's GPU-aided rendering, I very much doubt it matches Pixelmator's dynamic feedback when applying filters, using the magic wand, the paintbucket, gradients, etc.
Adobe's goin' DOOOOOWN!
Hey, Adobe, if you want to create your own interface paradigms, build your own effin' OS.
Be careful what you wish for, Adobe seems to be developing its own "environment" along with their own programming languages.
Now that Apple has a solid cash reserve, it's time for them to invest it in the obvious and buy Adobe. And if they do, I hope SJ won't screw things up by turning the CS Suite into a cheesy iHome suite for his kids or something.
The "shadows behind windows" are one of the most helpful and well-liked features of OS-X and you are the first I have ever heard arguing for them being removed.
Those shadows are so subtle as to barely be perceptible. As such, they aren't very helpful to me.
1b) Because the product is now sold to large institutions and companies as opposed to end users, it starts acquiring all kinds of extra features as the price/value proposition is what's being hyped in the marketing materials. You get an "all features plus the kitchen sink" approach that makes the program all things to all people, except it has the side effect of making it almost useless to a user with a focussed set of tasks.
The new version allows the user interface to be modified, so it can be tuned to tasks such that the user has access to exactly what they need, when they need it.
You wrote:
Objective-C is a superset of the C Programming Language. To lose the C would be to kill Objective-C. This isn't C++ which thinks it's a better, more complete C.
Objective-C interfaces into Core Text while low level algorithms for Text handling in C persist is the point of Objective-C and it's relationship with C. I urge people who write articles on Cocoa to first learn Objective-C. Otherwise, you show a lack of understanding that is critical to the purpose behind Cocoa and the Objective-C MVC/KVC models of software development.
Can you highlight what in the article you were taking issue with? It's not obvious from your quote. What error or contradiction are you seeing?