Something I don't quite understand (especially Adobe)

leonisleonis
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Back to the pre 10.1 time we heard that Adobe was complaining about the API of X and they said it was crap and would be extremely difficult to port their apps.



But during that time we did see some big apps really ported to X. From high end apps in 3D (Maya, Lightwave, Cinema), Motion capture (FilmBox), to 2D stuff (Painter, Corel Draw, Freehand)



They all run fine.



I don't really understand why Adobe made that claim. There apps are not as complicated as Maya I think....therefore I really don't understand why they keep saying they were having tough time.



I am not a software engineer....if I really were making some false thought correct me

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    ventralventral Posts: 51member
    I think a big part of the problem is that they have so much legacy code, from way way back.



    That, and they are lazy bastards.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    gorgonzolagorgonzola Posts: 185member
    Well, even Microsoft said that at MWNY that they needed around 20-25 specific bug fixes in order to run Office properly, so Office X would be released only for 10.1.



    I don't think Adobe went so far as to say that the entire API was "crap"...
  • Reply 3 of 12
    code mastercode master Posts: 344member
    I think Ventral is right. Photoshop's code is extremely old and tied closely to the system (for optimizations and mac specific code) whereas Maya and whatnot were prolly made from scratch for X and most of their code is prolly inhouse stuff that works fine on any platform.



    Just some theories...



    CD
  • Reply 4 of 12
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    it can't be that closely tied to the system, as all Adobe apps have been fully cross-platform [in fact some people would say more windows friendly] for a couple of verisons now. Adobe also uses its own display and font libs for ALL apps.



    BTW Adobe is blaming [at least on support forums for Illustrator] CarbonLib for some of its performance problems.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    arty50arty50 Posts: 201member
    In the case of Maya, it was created for Unix. So I assume moving it from Unix to OSX was a much simpler task than moving Photoshop from Classic to X.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>it can't be that closely tied to the system, as all Adobe apps have been fully cross-platform [in fact some people would say more windows friendly] for a couple of verisons now. Adobe also uses its own display and font libs for ALL apps.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Photoshop is still a port to Windows. Move your cursor over a open document in Photoshop. Notice the cursor. Ive heard many people complain about Photoshop on Windows and how it sucks compared to Photoshop on the Mac.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    This is why I don't expect an OS X native Quark for literally three years. Getting that code cleaned up and in some cases just plain replaced to get it to the level of a "dirty" Carbon port, let alone a good Carbon version (Mach-O? Ha!) will likely take that long considering who is doing it. It's all relative.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

    <strong>



    Photoshop is still a port to Windows. Move your cursor over a open document in Photoshop. Notice the cursor. Ive heard many people complain about Photoshop on Windows and how it sucks compared to Photoshop on the Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What's the cursor supposed to do? Mines goes from my cursor to current tool when I mouse over an open file.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>This is why I don't expect an OS X native Quark for literally three years. Getting that code cleaned up and in some cases just plain replaced to get it to the level of a "dirty" Carbon port, let alone a good Carbon version (Mach-O? Ha!) will likely take that long considering who is doing it. It's all relative.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    By then it won't matter. InDesign will have swept up the market.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    a holcka holck Posts: 20member
    In Photoshop 6.0 for windows I get a special error occationally:

    "Quickdraw could not be initialized"



    Hmmmmm.......
  • Reply 11 of 12
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>



    What's the cursor supposed to do? Mines goes from my cursor to current tool when I mouse over an open file.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In Windows the cursor changes from a PC one to a Mac looking one.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by a holck:

    <strong>In Photoshop 6.0 for windows I get a special error occationally:

    "Quickdraw could not be initialized"



    Hmmmmm.......</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Heh.. more proof it's just a port.
Sign In or Register to comment.