Adobe may not deliver native Intel Mac support until 2007

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 80
    Adobe's discision makes Apple's transition to become awkward, especially this year. Those who often use professional software from Adobe will definitely not buy an Intel Mac, at least this year. This might hurt Apple very much.
  • Reply 22 of 80
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,798member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wgauvin

    This is so true. Apple caught a lot of pro app suppliers off guard by now saying they will have completed the transition to Intel by the end of 2006. When the Intel transition announcement was made, it looked like the transition would end late 2007, not late 2006. This would have given the likes of Adobe the time to fit it in to their usual development cycle. If more companies do what Adobe is doing, it will make the move to Intel more of a bumpy ride, but Apple is the one causing this.



    When I heard the transition timeline, I immediately expected that Jobs had padded the transition time by a year to allow for unseen problems and the "beating expectations" effect.



    Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the computing industry would know that Apple wasn't going to "Osbourne" their product line for 24 months.



    If Adobe bet on Jobs not being able to pull it off in a year, they have only themselves to blame.
  • Reply 23 of 80
    rraburrabu Posts: 239member
    Pros desperate to upgrade to the latest and greatest could always switch to Windows and use Photoshop there. Adobe doesn't care what OS people are using their software on.



    Perhaps another alternative:

    Once projects like Darwine get there, maybe running the Windows x86 Photoshop on Intel Macs will be faster than running the OSX PPC Photoshop on Intel Macs....
  • Reply 24 of 80
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AppleInsider

    Citing a policy of not commenting on future ship dates, the company would only point to its track-record of releasing significant upgrades to its creative professional applications every 18-24 months.



    If memory serves me correctly, CS2 came out not very much longer after CS. Certainly not 18 months apart.

    Not saying that Adobe will go native sooner than 2007, but they're just padding themselves some time. Trust me...if there's an upgrade (read $), they'll spit out UB versions sooner.



    But perhaps Adobe should really focus on just getting their quality control back up to snuff. Latest versions of Illustrator are just downright buggy!
  • Reply 25 of 80
    ibuzzibuzz Posts: 135member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by satchmo

    If memory serves me correctly, CS2 came out not very much longer after CS. Certainly not 18 months apart.

    Not saying that Adobe will go native sooner than 2007, but they're just padding themselves some time. Trust me...if there's an upgrade (read $), they'll spit out UB versions sooner.



    But perhaps Adobe should really focus on just getting their quality control back up to snuff. Latest versions of Illustrator are just downright buggy!




    Perhaps apple should focus on quality control. Latest versions of OSX are downright buggy\
  • Reply 26 of 80
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,798member
    CS2 was announced in April 2005 and began shipping in May 2005.

    CS was announced in September 2003 and shipped before the end of that year.



    Adobe usually follows an average 18-month cycle. That would make November the target for CS3.



    And with Quark almost ready with a Universal upgrade, believe me, there will be no delay.
  • Reply 27 of 80
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dillyo1001

    anyone else been losing significant respect for adobe over the last few years?



    That's the main reason I prefer Photoshop 7 over CS2. They have stopped inventing and started shooting themselves in the feet.



    But then, I think I've done this rent before...

    <SNIP>



    I started eyeing the MacBook and while running Photoshop is not a requirement, it is a big plus. I don't want to get a computer that runs my everyday programs unnecessarily slow. Still, this Adobe announcement will have no effect on my purchasing decision.
  • Reply 28 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by msantti

    Okay Apple, feel free to come out with your Photoshop app now.



    Adobe does not want to play ball.



    Screw 'em.




    Presto! Changeo! We here at Apple who have two incredibly talented engineers give you,



    TIFFany X Pro.



    (For those that don't know the two Stanford grads who started CaffeineSoft and developed TIFFany through 3.0 release work at Apple. One is a major developer on Quartz and the other in various departments concerning EOF, CoreData, etc.)



    Now this would be great for Steve to allow this to happen.



    An up-to-date TIFFany that can be sold jointly with Aperture.
  • Reply 29 of 80
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Hit reply, not edit.
  • Reply 30 of 80
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,798member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    Presto! Changeo! We here at Apple who have two incredibly talented engineers give you,



    TIFFany X Pro.



    (For those that don't know the two Stanford grads who started CaffeineSoft and developed TIFFany through 3.0 release work at Apple. One is a major developer on Quartz and the other in various departments concerning EOF, CoreData, etc.)



    Now this would be great for Steve to allow this to happen.



    An up-to-date TIFFany that can be sold jointly with Aperture.




    This is where I would categorically dismiss the idea that Steve would ever allow any app out of Cupertino to have a name as tacky as that.



    But given that the Powerbook marquee has been traded for MacBook Pro, my faith has been shaken.
  • Reply 31 of 80
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Since their products are already cross platform, I'm surprised they can't do a univeral binary rather quickly. That is, all their graphics manipulation routines are likely already byte-order independent.
  • Reply 32 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ascii

    Since their products are already cross platform, I'm surprised they can't do a univeral binary rather quickly. That is, all their graphics manipulation routines are likely already byte-order independent.



    Their products are cross platform because they were developed using CodeWarrior. CodeWarrior is now owned by Freescale and their now more interested in embedded processors than either Macs or Windows.
  • Reply 33 of 80
    I tend towards giving Adobe, (omg) Microsoft, and the other old school code warrior/carbon developers a break. In the space of 5 years Apple has created two huge transitions for developers.



    For those that don't know, code warrior was the app to code mac apps prior to os x. as far as i know, apple had no public IDE. certainly when xCode was released, it was a work in progress. I was just learning cocoa at the time, and it was frustrating how much things changed in xCode quickly. Any book was quickly out of date. And remember, the old school developers were the ones who balked at the original cocoa only os x environment. Carbon was created to satisfy these old and important customers. In Apple's defense, they stressed the advantages of cocoa and seemed to be trying to guide developers towards that. However, OS X was an unknown OS at the time and the biggies thought better safe than sorry, and took the easy route by sticking with code warrior and carbon.



    Now certainly no one expected this second major transition this quickly. I think it is asking a lot of the big houses. Remember, these are not one little guy cocoa apps (that rock), these are huge code bases often times with cross platform frameworks. To transition to an entirely new IDE, as well as update their carbon code, is an enormous task. Remember at WWDC when Steve said Cocoa developers could simply click a button, and carbon developers who used xCode would have a little more work? Well what he didn't say is that if you are a carbon developer on code warrior, then you are f*cked by this announcement.



    So before we talk about how crappy Adobe is, remember the probelms above, compounded by integrating two entirely separate code basses from Macromedia and Adobe.



    It is so easy to complain, but we should count our lucky stars that these transitions have gone relatively smoothly. It will be painful up top for these old school developers. But think about it, by forcing their developers to use xCode to move forward (since CW is kaput), Apple now has complete processor indepence. If they ever want to add any other supported processors, their own tools will make it a no brainer for developers.



    Or at least that's my understanding..
  • Reply 34 of 80
    http://www.shawcomputing.net/resourc...shots/ns40.jpg







    http://www.shawcomputing.net/resourc...tiffany2-b.jpg





    Apple has the resources to make a Photoshop Killer. When Adobe saw a preview of TIFFany 3 at WWDC 97 they quickly brought several top engineers to ask about how this and that are done. Some interesting parts of TIFFany have been attempted in Photoshop.



    One of my favorite strengths of TIFFany is how layers can have an independent bit depth. One layer may be at 32bit, another at 2bit grayscale, so on and so forth.
  • Reply 35 of 80
    Seems to me like Apple's policy of surprising people with their announcements is what has caused some of this. It's great showmanship but this sort of planning requires early advice. Apple won't be giving away their secrets until SJ is ready to do it on stage. That means that software companies have to wait and act once they hear like the consumer.



    Doing the introduction of the new iMac and MacBook Pro the way they did was always going to look impressive on Apple's part but was going to be a major headache for companies like Adobe. I'm not a professional programmer but I've done a bit during my degree. I've played with most of the CS Suite and I can't even begin to imagine the task that Adobe face getting apps like Photoshop and Premiere Pro into UB (and not buggy at first release). Also, couple that with taking on Macromedia and integrating their staff and assets into the company. It's a logistical nightmare!



    Perhaps Apple are planning to attempt to shove Adobe's products aside (or at least nibble away at their lead) and the surprise announcements are a good way of doing this. From what I've seen Aperture is very sweet (maybe I just believe the advertising) and no wonder Adobe and getting Lightroom out there ASAP.



    IMHO, Adobe can't be blamed for this. Apple were gearing towards this transition since OS X started development, Adobe didn't know until last year! It's a bit of a head start. Could all be another Steve Jobs master plan for world domination!
  • Reply 36 of 80
    Adobe have certainly gone down hill in my books and are in danger of adopting the role 'Quark' had during the Mac OS X migration (i.e. LAST).



    This is however on top of two other major failings by Adobe (from a Mac perspective).



    1. Acrobat on a Mac does not provide full support for PDF forms (submitting electronically). Also I have read that Acrobat on a Mac does not yet have support for the new 3D PDF standard. This breaks the whole platform independent nature of PDFs.



    [Regarding electronic forms, Adobe should work with FileMaker so that forms can be submitted to/from FileMaker, this would be hugely beneficial as the PC system is way too complicated and as indicated above DOES NOT WORK WITH MACS.]



    2. There is a major bug in Creative Suite 2 (and Acrobat 7) to do with using Network Login accounts (this bug did not exist in CS1 & Acrobat 6). Adobe have known about this for many months and Acrobat at least has had FIVE updates in that time and they STILL have not fixed it. It looks increasingly likely that it will NEVER be fixed in Creative Suite 2 (or Acrobat 7) and one would therefore have to PAY for CS3 or Acrobat 8 ASSUMING IT IS FIXED THEN!
  • Reply 37 of 80
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ibuzz

    Perhaps apple should focus on quality control. Latest versions of OSX are downright buggy\



    Amen ... :-(



    Managed to lock up the OS yesterday when I started up Dashboard. Does it run in the kernel or something?



    Couple of things.



    Do folk here have any idea how complex Adobe product suite is? Both Photoshop and MSOffice almost qualify as operating systems in their own right. That's a lot of code to convert and test. Yes, they could rewrite it in scratch, but then you've got about three years of bugs to get it back up to the same level. As 'bloated' as some folk (many who have never seen it) think the Adobe code base is, it's tested and for the most part, it works. They would be daft to throw it away.



    And when folk complain about bloat, how come they don't whinge about universal binaries? At least half the code in Adobe's packages aren't just sitting there doing nothing!



    Apple shifts to PowerPC. Adobe sticks with 'em.

    Apple shifts to MacOSX. Adobe sticks with 'em.

    Apple shifts to Intel. Adobe sticks with 'em.



    I don't see any question of support here. Yes, it takes a while, but as I said; Photoshop is a big package with plug-ins that need to go across as well. What they're doing is trying to make the best out of what is essentially Apple's problem. Can't see why Adobe should foot the bill for Apple's decision to shift.



    Oh, and it's not IBM/Motorola's fault either. Apple didn't want to foot the bill for PPC development (fair enough - if they can get a standard chip that's cheaper, then they should), IBM coughing up for it would be a little unfair on their other customers who do pay.
  • Reply 38 of 80
    Look, CS3 was never going to happen until Windows Vista came out anyhow (Q4 2006 or later). No way Adobe ever releases major software and suites without having both OS versions ready. With Vista that close and such a major part of the market share, Adobe will develop CS3 for both OSes. So to be shocked that CS3 won't see the light of day until 2007 is just not being aware of the obvious.



    Then it gets down to being reasonable about this whole matter. I have no problems w/ my current mix of CS1 & CS2; they work and so do I because of it. If you need a Mac get a Power Mac now and quit wasting time on waiting for a MacTel. As past models show, it's best to give any new Apple model at least one iteration to work out the bugs. Plus by that time Leopard will be out; it will better optimized for MacTel computers and will probably enhance the overall performance and value on the new computers.



    I just think as Apple users we need to really focus on 2007 and look to 2006 as whether we have immediate or long term needs in our choice.
  • Reply 39 of 80
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet

    I'm guessing they've gotten themselves into a bind with the Suite pricing and rather than do the extra work and introduce apps piecemeal they rather wait and release everything at once. For instance, I know I've read somewhere (accurate or not who knows I can't remember the source) that the latest version of illustrator was a rewrite using Apple's compilers, and if that's true, it should take considerably less effort to transition.



    Illustrator was ported to Xcode in May last year, but since it was a post CS2 version they can't just release it until CS3 is finished.
  • Reply 40 of 80
    The statement from Adobe sounds like they are hurt and dont care about Mac platform.

    Hurt : cause they didnt came out with a software as Aperture before Apple, thats why they keep pushing that App. Like they fell apple had surpassed their territory in some way and thats the way to defend it.

    Careless: They now they have a huge amount of Photoshop users that will "still suporting" their suite for a while until they can charge $$$$$$$ them with a UniBin version of it.



    I really dont know whats the deal with a lot of people moaning about Photoshop its not UniBin. WHO CARES ?

    U moaners please tell me that your G5's are slow running Photoshop ? if its the case buy more memory. This moaning only shows a bunch of spoilered kids that want the last toy around. If your actual system works, have 110% support from Adobe and its paying your bill, why the rush ?

    Another thing, maybe some people forget that the main focus of Apple is now the consumer, pros still being important to Apple but arent they the ones that will buy mac minis,iBooks, iMacs. Those machines are for consumers and the iMac its intended for gamers and prosumers. I dont get it. Want a pro machine? buy a G5 tower that's screaming fast, want an iMac ? buy the 20 inches G5 2.1 that is $200.00 cheaper rigth now.



    Nobody its forcing anyone to buy the latest toy, by the time Adobe and others release their apps in UniBin we will have the Mac Pro tower and the iMac will be already pumped to 2.3 & 2.5 core duo and todays machine will be not as cool. screaming fast as they do now.
Sign In or Register to comment.