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.
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.
Lists the Applications that are Carbon vs. Cocoa from Apple.
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.
It's become clear that despite Stone's history on the platform, they have no idea how to build a real pro application.
Why doesn't Adobe simply buy the company to give themselves a leg up on building in Cocoa?
As usual with such an interesting topic we've got some good debate here(and at Ars as well).
I can't help wondering if this will be a tempest in a teapot, however. How many people work with large enough files that the 64 'bitness' is actually an issue? Is the 8-10% gain under normal conditions enough to warrant a platform switch?
I don't know the answers to these questions. It might make for a nice poll though. Maybe we can get Ireland to post one.
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.
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.
Apple doesn't walk to a destination.
Jobs' strategy (and character) is based on making noisy, earth-shattering leaps.
I'm sure they've seen the 64-bit issue coming for a long time. The Final Cut Pro scene has been relatively quiet for awhile, a huge Mac Pro revision is due at the end of the year and Phenomenon is coming.
I believe that WWDC will be a very interesting place this year for 64-bit Pro applications.
My mistake I didn't resized Adobe gets paid when they devote resources to something that doesn't ship. I wish my company worked like that.. I've got to look into this more.
Quote:
No...wrong.
My mistake again I guess I was hallucinating when Activity Monitor was showing that Photoshop was using 100% of the 3.5GB of memory I've allotted to it and I was getting scratch disc warnings from Photoshop preventing me from doing a transform action I needed to do even though the scratch disc has 159 GB available. (This is after I closed out of other open Apps that use the scratch disc and my other open PSD docs). I wish I had more then 4 GB on my system because it's painfully obvious that that extra 500Mb I could give to Photoshop would have magically changed my workflow.
Quote:
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.
My mistake again. I guess my friend who has been a developer since 1981 working for Sun, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle to name a few before starting up his own software company, must have just woke up on the wrong side of the bed when he was bitching about loosing the use of hundreds of thousands of lines of code from something that was indicated it would be supported. But I guess it's ok because of the logic in your first response he just gets paid... I really got to look into that. He's making all this money from code he can't use anymore and makes more money magically by rewriting it even if he doesn't ship a product. That is cool!
It's become clear that despite Stone's history on the platform, they have no idea how to build a real pro application.
Why doesn't Adobe simply buy the company to give themselves a leg up on building in Cocoa?
They? You mean Andy?
What you grasp about a Professional App and his ability to develop one are juxtaposed.
You're talking about Andrew Stone. Technically brilliant, reclusive and uninterested in developing Applications that service the general masses.
He's financially lucrative and does his own thing. He is one of the most caring, talented and genuine individuals you will ever meet and have the joy of working with.
Andrew has repeatedly turned down opportunities to turn Create into an Illustrator killer because he's not interested in being beholden to the mass media, markets and corporate heads about his products.
My mistake I didn't resized Adobe gets paid when they devote resources to something that doesn't ship. I wish my company worked like that.. I've got to look into this more.
My mistake again I guess I was hallucinating when Activity Monitor was showing that Photoshop was using 100% of the 3.5GB of memory I've allotted to it and I was getting scratch disc warnings from Photoshop preventing me from doing a transform action I needed to do even though the scratch disc has 159 GB available. (This is after I closed out of other open Apps that use the scratch disc and my other open PSD docs). I wish I had more then 4 GB on my system because it's painfully obvious that that extra 500Mb I could give to Photoshop would have magically changed my workflow.
My mistake again. I guess my friend who has been a developer since 1981 working for Sun, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle to name a few before starting up his own software company, must have just woke up on the wrong side of the bed when he was bitching about loosing the use of hundreds of thousands of lines of code from something that was indicated it would be supported. But I guess it's ok because of the logic in your first response he just gets paid... I really got to look into that. He's making all this money from code he can't use anymore and makes more money magically by rewriting it even if he doesn't ship a product. That is cool!
Jobs' strategy (and character) is based on making noisy, earth-shattering leaps.
I'm sure they've seen the 64-bit issue coming for a long time. The Final Cut Pro scene has been relatively quiet for awhile, a huge Mac Pro revision is due at the end of the year and Phenomenon is coming.
I believe that WWDC will be a very interesting place this year for 64-bit Pro applications.
I guarantee it. You will be seeing PowerPC say bye-bye to future 64 bit only Apple Applications.
I can't help wondering if this will be a tempest in a teapot, however. How many people work with large enough files that the 64 'bitness' is actually an issue? Is the 8-10% gain under normal conditions enough to warrant a platform switch?
64 bit just runs better all the way around, less crashing, less hangs. This my experience with Linux 64 and Windows 64 as well as Mac. It turns out that the impovement isn't just speed, but also reliability.
What you grasp about a Professional App and his ability to develop one are juxtaposed.
You're talking about Andrew Stone. Technically brilliant, reclusive and uninterested in developing Applications that service the general masses.
He's financially lucrative and does his own thing. He is one of the most caring, talented and genuine individuals you will ever meet and have the joy of working with.
Andrew has repeatedly turned down opportunities to turn Create into an Illustrator killer because he's not interested in being beholden to the mass media, markets and corporate heads about his products.
His software skills are top knotch.
I certainly didn't mean to malign Mr. Stone, and I'm sure he's a brilliant individual.
However, I have to question the basic idea of developing general purpose applications and then saying they're not meant for the masses.
Looking at Create, it's got a lot of what Illustrator and InDesign have, but with a bewildering (if not downright ugly) interface. I don't see how fixing the UI would somehow make him "beholden to mass media, markets and corporate heads."
All it would do is make the product more relevant in the Mac marketplace, and make the rest of us less beholden to Adobe's whims.
Even though John Nack's comments were very welcome — very welcome indeed — there is no disguising that there is something quite broken about the relationship between Apple and Adobe — and the sourness seems to be coming mostly from the Adobe side. I wish these guys would fix this rift. It is harming everybody.
What you grasp about a Professional App and his ability to develop one are juxtaposed.
You're talking about Andrew Stone. Technically brilliant, reclusive and uninterested in developing Applications that service the general masses.
He's financially lucrative and does his own thing. He is one of the most caring, talented and genuine individuals you will ever meet and have the joy of working with.
Andrew has repeatedly turned down opportunities to turn Create into an Illustrator killer because he's not interested in being beholden to the mass media, markets and corporate heads about his products.
His software skills are top knotch.
Perhaps he should find an equally reclusive, yet brilliant, interface designer.
It is strange that Adobe seems to have had the skills to manage "huge" amounts of (Adobe) virtual memory, even under MacOS9. Trouble is, Unix and current hardware have those things built-in. I suppose for very large images it is hard to avoid some kind of disk paging.
But remember, in the old days, computers (think PDP-11) had much bigger physical memory than virtual memory.
The currently emerging situation:
It seems that the hardware and memory is present in current Macs, and SOME software (e.g., Adobe Carbon apps) can't handle more than 4GB of virtual memory.
I claim that Adobe should apply its skills to support images much larger than 4GB, by exploiting the available (system/physical) memory on current hardware, just as they were able to do in the past.
I guess my friend who has been a developer since 1981 working for Sun, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle to name a few before starting up his own software company, must have just woke up on the wrong side of the bed when he was bitching about loosing the use of hundreds of thousands of lines of code from something that was indicated it would be supported. But I guess it's ok because of the logic in your first response he just gets paid... I really got to look into that. He's making all this money from code he can't use anymore and makes more money magically by rewriting it even if he doesn't ship a product. That is cool!
This is par for the course really. Adobe (Macromedia) did the same thing moving from Action Script 2 to Actionscript 3 in Flash. What about all those Flash apps written in 2.0? Developers have to re-right them to. That's because it's their job.
And another thing - Adobe needs to get their story straight. When Apple originally said that 64bit would be fully supported in Carbon, Adobe had ABSOLUTELY NO plans to immediately start implementing 64 bit in their Creative Suite, because they wouldn't release it for the Mac if they couldn't release it for the P.C. So they can stop acting like fucking children (seems par for the course from them these days) and get to work and do their jobs. In fact, if Apple hadn't scrapped 64bit for Carbon, the Creative Suite would have NEVER gone to Cocoa, so they can STFU and get cracking.
I'm mean who's running the show here? That's right - it's Apple. You want a company that bowes to Developer pressure - take a look at Microsoft and what a mess their platform has become because Developers have so much pull over the direction of the OS.
And another thing - Adobe needs to get their story straight. When Apple originally said that 64bit would be fully supported in Carbon, Adobe had ABSOLUTELY NO plans to immediately start implementing 64 bit in their Creative Suite, because they wouldn't release it for the Mac if they couldn't release it for the P.C.
This is a key point.
Adobe has said for years that they couldn't introduce Mac-specific technologies to Creative Suite because the Suite had one codebase and had to be cross-platform.
So why is the PC getting 64-bitness if the Mac can't?
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.
i wasnt at wwdc, i was living in a field 8000 miles away, but Apple still managed to make it clear to me (and anyone else with ears and/or eyes) also.
Comments
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.
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.
Lists the Applications that are Carbon vs. Cocoa from Apple.
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.
It's become clear that despite Stone's history on the platform, they have no idea how to build a real pro application.
Why doesn't Adobe simply buy the company to give themselves a leg up on building in Cocoa?
I can't help wondering if this will be a tempest in a teapot, however. How many people work with large enough files that the 64 'bitness' is actually an issue? Is the 8-10% gain under normal conditions enough to warrant a platform switch?
I don't know the answers to these questions. It might make for a nice poll though. Maybe we can get Ireland to post one.
Lists the Applications that are Carbon vs. Cocoa from Apple.
Dude, you're replying to your own posts.
That's not healthy from a mental standpoint.
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.
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.
Apple doesn't walk to a destination.
Jobs' strategy (and character) is based on making noisy, earth-shattering leaps.
I'm sure they've seen the 64-bit issue coming for a long time. The Final Cut Pro scene has been relatively quiet for awhile, a huge Mac Pro revision is due at the end of the year and Phenomenon is coming.
I believe that WWDC will be a very interesting place this year for 64-bit Pro applications.
No...they get paid.
My mistake I didn't resized Adobe gets paid when they devote resources to something that doesn't ship. I wish my company worked like that.. I've got to look into this more.
No...wrong.
My mistake again I guess I was hallucinating when Activity Monitor was showing that Photoshop was using 100% of the 3.5GB of memory I've allotted to it and I was getting scratch disc warnings from Photoshop preventing me from doing a transform action I needed to do even though the scratch disc has 159 GB available. (This is after I closed out of other open Apps that use the scratch disc and my other open PSD docs). I wish I had more then 4 GB on my system because it's painfully obvious that that extra 500Mb I could give to Photoshop would have magically changed my workflow.
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.
My mistake again. I guess my friend who has been a developer since 1981 working for Sun, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle to name a few before starting up his own software company, must have just woke up on the wrong side of the bed when he was bitching about loosing the use of hundreds of thousands of lines of code from something that was indicated it would be supported. But I guess it's ok because of the logic in your first response he just gets paid... I really got to look into that. He's making all this money from code he can't use anymore and makes more money magically by rewriting it even if he doesn't ship a product. That is cool!
O RLY?
ya
It's become clear that despite Stone's history on the platform, they have no idea how to build a real pro application.
Why doesn't Adobe simply buy the company to give themselves a leg up on building in Cocoa?
They? You mean Andy?
What you grasp about a Professional App and his ability to develop one are juxtaposed.
You're talking about Andrew Stone. Technically brilliant, reclusive and uninterested in developing Applications that service the general masses.
He's financially lucrative and does his own thing. He is one of the most caring, talented and genuine individuals you will ever meet and have the joy of working with.
Andrew has repeatedly turned down opportunities to turn Create into an Illustrator killer because he's not interested in being beholden to the mass media, markets and corporate heads about his products.
His software skills are top knotch.
My mistake I didn't resized Adobe gets paid when they devote resources to something that doesn't ship. I wish my company worked like that.. I've got to look into this more.
My mistake again I guess I was hallucinating when Activity Monitor was showing that Photoshop was using 100% of the 3.5GB of memory I've allotted to it and I was getting scratch disc warnings from Photoshop preventing me from doing a transform action I needed to do even though the scratch disc has 159 GB available. (This is after I closed out of other open Apps that use the scratch disc and my other open PSD docs). I wish I had more then 4 GB on my system because it's painfully obvious that that extra 500Mb I could give to Photoshop would have magically changed my workflow.
My mistake again. I guess my friend who has been a developer since 1981 working for Sun, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle to name a few before starting up his own software company, must have just woke up on the wrong side of the bed when he was bitching about loosing the use of hundreds of thousands of lines of code from something that was indicated it would be supported. But I guess it's ok because of the logic in your first response he just gets paid... I really got to look into that. He's making all this money from code he can't use anymore and makes more money magically by rewriting it even if he doesn't ship a product. That is cool!
ya
I suggest you have your friend speak for himself.
Apple doesn't walk to a destination.
Jobs' strategy (and character) is based on making noisy, earth-shattering leaps.
I'm sure they've seen the 64-bit issue coming for a long time. The Final Cut Pro scene has been relatively quiet for awhile, a huge Mac Pro revision is due at the end of the year and Phenomenon is coming.
I believe that WWDC will be a very interesting place this year for 64-bit Pro applications.
I guarantee it. You will be seeing PowerPC say bye-bye to future 64 bit only Apple Applications.
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.
Ya, I mean sure. OS X and development for OS X is a lot different from 1997.
...And so Apple said they wouldn't support it more then 2 years in transition,
...then they said they would support it,
...and then they did support it whole hardily and continued to use it for many of their Apps..
.. and then they said they wouldn't.
All I'm saying is it tends to be a little difficult for some developers who believed that Carbon would be supported.
I personally think the Cocoa move was inevitable and a good thing.
But still if Apple tells you Carbons good to go and then changes that....Owcha mamma for some
I suggest you have your friend speak for himself.
I guess adding something that would express how some developer feel isn't relevant...
Oh well.
I can't help wondering if this will be a tempest in a teapot, however. How many people work with large enough files that the 64 'bitness' is actually an issue? Is the 8-10% gain under normal conditions enough to warrant a platform switch?
64 bit just runs better all the way around, less crashing, less hangs. This my experience with Linux 64 and Windows 64 as well as Mac. It turns out that the impovement isn't just speed, but also reliability.
m
They? You mean Andy?
What you grasp about a Professional App and his ability to develop one are juxtaposed.
You're talking about Andrew Stone. Technically brilliant, reclusive and uninterested in developing Applications that service the general masses.
He's financially lucrative and does his own thing. He is one of the most caring, talented and genuine individuals you will ever meet and have the joy of working with.
Andrew has repeatedly turned down opportunities to turn Create into an Illustrator killer because he's not interested in being beholden to the mass media, markets and corporate heads about his products.
His software skills are top knotch.
I certainly didn't mean to malign Mr. Stone, and I'm sure he's a brilliant individual.
However, I have to question the basic idea of developing general purpose applications and then saying they're not meant for the masses.
Looking at Create, it's got a lot of what Illustrator and InDesign have, but with a bewildering (if not downright ugly) interface. I don't see how fixing the UI would somehow make him "beholden to mass media, markets and corporate heads."
All it would do is make the product more relevant in the Mac marketplace, and make the rest of us less beholden to Adobe's whims.
They? You mean Andy?
What you grasp about a Professional App and his ability to develop one are juxtaposed.
You're talking about Andrew Stone. Technically brilliant, reclusive and uninterested in developing Applications that service the general masses.
He's financially lucrative and does his own thing. He is one of the most caring, talented and genuine individuals you will ever meet and have the joy of working with.
Andrew has repeatedly turned down opportunities to turn Create into an Illustrator killer because he's not interested in being beholden to the mass media, markets and corporate heads about his products.
His software skills are top knotch.
Perhaps he should find an equally reclusive, yet brilliant, interface designer.
Further, the fact that images continue to grow and are expected to exceed 4GB, is unavoidable. Didn't Adobe see this problem coming?
They could have saved a lot of time because development under Cocoa is
- much faster (because the system takes care of a lot of things behind the scenes that under Carbon need to be hard coded)
- much more robust
Besides, what are we talking about? CS4 is still vaporware. What shall we call CS5? Gasware?As already pointed out in previous posts, they would have gotten the transition from PPC to Intel almost without effort, had they switched to Cocoa
I also detect some sort of déjÃ* vu here:
- The past Virtual Memory Scene
- The currently emerging situation:
I claim that Adobe should apply its skills to support images much larger than 4GB, by exploiting the available (system/physical) memory on current hardware, just as they were able to do in the past.It is strange that Adobe seems to have had the skills to manage "huge" amounts of (Adobe) virtual memory, even under MacOS9. Trouble is, Unix and current hardware have those things built-in. I suppose for very large images it is hard to avoid some kind of disk paging.
But remember, in the old days, computers (think PDP-11) had much bigger physical memory than virtual memory.
It seems that the hardware and memory is present in current Macs, and SOME software (e.g., Adobe Carbon apps) can't handle more than 4GB of virtual memory.
I guess my friend who has been a developer since 1981 working for Sun, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle to name a few before starting up his own software company, must have just woke up on the wrong side of the bed when he was bitching about loosing the use of hundreds of thousands of lines of code from something that was indicated it would be supported. But I guess it's ok because of the logic in your first response he just gets paid... I really got to look into that. He's making all this money from code he can't use anymore and makes more money magically by rewriting it even if he doesn't ship a product. That is cool!
This is par for the course really. Adobe (Macromedia) did the same thing moving from Action Script 2 to Actionscript 3 in Flash. What about all those Flash apps written in 2.0? Developers have to re-right them to. That's because it's their job.
And another thing - Adobe needs to get their story straight. When Apple originally said that 64bit would be fully supported in Carbon, Adobe had ABSOLUTELY NO plans to immediately start implementing 64 bit in their Creative Suite, because they wouldn't release it for the Mac if they couldn't release it for the P.C. So they can stop acting like fucking children (seems par for the course from them these days) and get to work and do their jobs. In fact, if Apple hadn't scrapped 64bit for Carbon, the Creative Suite would have NEVER gone to Cocoa, so they can STFU and get cracking.
I'm mean who's running the show here? That's right - it's Apple. You want a company that bowes to Developer pressure - take a look at Microsoft and what a mess their platform has become because Developers have so much pull over the direction of the OS.
And another thing - Adobe needs to get their story straight. When Apple originally said that 64bit would be fully supported in Carbon, Adobe had ABSOLUTELY NO plans to immediately start implementing 64 bit in their Creative Suite, because they wouldn't release it for the Mac if they couldn't release it for the P.C.
This is a key point.
Adobe has said for years that they couldn't introduce Mac-specific technologies to Creative Suite because the Suite had one codebase and had to be cross-platform.
So why is the PC getting 64-bitness if the Mac can't?
..... What shall we call CS5? Gasware?
Imagineware. 64 bit and cross platform.
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.
i wasnt at wwdc, i was living in a field 8000 miles away, but Apple still managed to make it clear to me (and anyone else with ears and/or eyes) also.
Carbon was a temporary measure, and thats that.