People are getting caught up in a lot of artificial benchmarks and filter tests, but no one is talking about the system's usability. Do you pixel pushers really run filters all day? Rosetta is NOT Classic. PhotoShop is extremely usable in this environment.
And this seems like an opportunity for certain users who've chosen to be early Intel Mac adaptors to learn how to use Rosetta-translated PS more effectively.
People tend to forget that user (in)efficiency/performance sometimes has at least as much a factor in productivity as system/software (in)efficiency/performance. I can be more productive with certain tasks on my 600Mhz iBook G3 than some users on faster systems simply because of having skill at getting more from less.
I'd cut Adobe a break. They are a business, and transitioning their software well to a new *processor* will take some time.
Brian
You mean the same processor their Windosw version of the software runs on. They already have the CPU optimized assembler code where they need it. This isn't about coding or even a transition to Xcode, because they are almost done with that too. it's about not wanting to do QA on reorganized and recompiled code. It's a major QA hassle, but with the way they already have platform neutral code, not that much new code to actually write.
Someone posted a comment recently (was it Cringely? ) about Apple buying Adobe allow Apple to take a hostage against Microsoft from dumping Office for OS X.
With this lukewarm announcement from Adobe, I would bet strategic analysts at Apple are cranking the numbers right now. Owned by Apple, Adobe would be told what their development priorities are and Apple would own the creative platform.
this is an intriguing notion: Apple could manipulate the release of features to favor their own OS, (kind of the reverse of what we see now) and optimize for their own hardware. Perhaps it would entice quite a few switchers. they probably have the cash to do it. 8)
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
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few more programs almost every day.
In order to get Motion to run properly, you need a computer that is at least a year and a half old with a very high end video card. With the latest version of Final Cut Studio coming out soon, I am afraid I am either going to have to do one of the following when I find out my current g5 is not good enough to run the latest version of Motion:
A) Buy a new G5 Tower in the next few months to be able to run it.
Keep my current setup for at least another year until After Effects, Illustrator, and Photoshop are all updated to Universal and I can buy a MacPro. But not be able to utilize the latest features in Motion until i go buy a mactel... but I'll still have to buy Motion because the Studio is only sold together now and not separately.
C) Keep my current setup and go buy a macpro when they come out and have the two working between each other using external hard-drives. Which is just a waste of time and a hassle, along with the fact that i am still paying off student loans, isn't likely to happen.
All of these options just make the next year dealing with computer and software upgrades appear to be not very fun. This combined with the fact that whenever I do go and sell my G5, I won't get nearly what I would have gotten for a two year old machine a few years ago before the intel transition was announced, when everyone else begins dumping their G4 and G5s as well.
Apple is obviously a very strong company right now with all the ipods they are selling, you would think that with them going to intel they could at least afford to cut the price off all the mac machines as a whole, i very highly doubt the macpros are going to be cheaper than the current powermacs. This would also help in getting people to switch to a mac. The more that the realities of this intel transition come into focus, the more it seems that the loyal customers are the ones getting screwed.
Not to sound bitter or anything by 'moving to XCode...', why the hell did they leave it THIS late to make the transition.
How many have heard the repeated pleeding by Steve to move to Xcode? it seems to be like a mantra that each WWDC, there is a plead to move to XCode; programmers, if you're out there, if Apple says move to Xcode or what have you, there is normally a bloody good reason for it!
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few more programs almost every day.
In order to get Motion to run properly, you need a computer that is at least a year and a half old with a very high end video card. With the latest version of Final Cut Studio coming out soon, I am afraid I am either going to have to do one of the following when I find out my current g5 is not good enough to run the latest version of Motion:
A) Buy a new G5 Tower in the next few months to be able to run it.
Keep my current setup for at least another year until After Effects, Illustrator, and Photoshop are all updated to Universal and I can buy a MacPro. But not be able to utilize the latest features in Motion until i go buy a mactel... but I'll still have to buy Motion because the Studio is only sold together now and not separately.
C) Keep my current setup and go buy a macpro when they come out and have the two working between each other using external hard-drives. Which is just a waste of time and a hassle, along with the fact that i am still paying off student loans, isn't likely to happen.
All of these options just make the next year dealing with computer and software upgrades appear to be not very fun. This combined with the fact that whenever I do go and sell my G5, I won't get nearly what I would have gotten for a two year old machine a few years ago before the intel transition was announced, when everyone else begins dumping their G4 and G5s as well.
Apple is obviously a very strong company right now with all the ipods they are selling, you would think that with them going to intel they could at least afford to cut the price off all the mac machines as a whole, i very highly doubt the macpros are going to be cheaper than the current powermacs. This would also help in getting people to switch to a mac. The more that the realities of this intel transition come into focus, the more it seems that the loyal customers are the ones getting screwed.
Apple doesnt do windows software, and without a windows version, no place in their right mind would use it for production in the current PC marketplace.
Also, can Apple risk pissing off Adobe without facing increases in licensing fees for .pdf? you think Adobe cheared at the site of Preview.app and PDF printing out of the box? no but they were likely getting a license fee, and Apple will probably have to pay up at every magor release...so...dont bite the hand that controls the price on PDF
Let me clear this licensing fee control issue up once and for all.
During the merger us NeXT folks were debating the surcharge tax that Display Postscript added on to Openstep ($10/copy). At that time the $799/user cost for Openstep and $4999 for Openstep Developer along with $25,000 for EOF and eventually $50,000 for WOF ObjC such a tax was negligible.
However, we were going to compete against Microsoft and when the cost of WOF was reduced to $699 and Developer was going to be FREE it became clear that $10/user to Adobe was a lot of money.
The decision to switch to Display PDF was quickly prototyped.
The fact that Adobe had released the specifications for PDF it was up to Apple to develop a Display PDF that complied with the latest publically released specifications.
Adobe keeps a competitive advantage by being one full revision ahead of these released specs.
When DisplayPDF came out it was PDF 1.4 compliant and Adobe was already using PDF 1.5. The current relationship is PDF 1.5 to PDF 1.6. This trend will continue.
Apple however pays NO LICENSING FEES. The advantages that PDF 1.6 concern issues of ECMAScript, DOM, SOAP, and some other non-pdf plugins.
The differences between the PDF Library SDK and that of the Acrobat Library SDK are clarified.
If Apple provided the extensibility of the Acrobat Professional SDK inside of Preview.app it would create a major rift between the two companies. This area of the market is not one Apple has a vested interest in other than being the OS platform provider.
This battle is for Quark and Adobe to beat each other into a pulp.
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few more programs almost every day.
I use it for web design so most of those above are of no use to me. Photoshop and a good text editor is all I need. Thankfully the text editors are all universal now but that just leaves Photoshop/ImageReady as the app I MUST have. I could get by with Fireworks but I don't really like it and that's probably less likely to go Universal as soon as Photoshop as v8 was only out a couple of months ago.
That analogy is fitting for many topics on rumor sites, e.g. the ridiculous volume (in amount and loudness) of gotta-know-before-it's-announced pre-Keynote impatience.
Very true, but I have to admit that I'm one of them. It's fun to anticipate and nature to explore new things. However, patience is a virtue, especially when you expect the perfection that you will never get.
My final word... At least we don't have to use Windows. (It's a scary thought, and imagine how impatient Windows users must be for Vista right now. Intel or PPC, OS X is all that really matters to me.)
Has anyone used InDesign on a new iMac Intel Duo? What is the performance like?
I am planning on picking up a notebook 15" (probably a duo model, hard to tell since we don't know Apple's plans) in May. It will be used to put together a new product catalog (hopefully using InDesign).
am i the only one old enough to recall that adobe's photoshop was the LAST major app to make an OS X compatible transition? remember when steve actually cited them BY NAME ON STAGE? this is hardly new. what confuses me is wasn't it chizen HIMSELF who asked steve tongue-in-cheek "what took you so long?" at the intel transition announcement? he made it sound like this was what adobe was WAITING for.
ah well, adobe is beginning to suffer from a microsoftian problem of being TOO big and having to incorporate too many other apps in any change to any single app, couple with backwards compatibility so as to not break previous files and workflows at production houses. compare this all to lightroom, which seems to be on the ball with new beta updates regularly, lower system requirements, etc. it's light on its feet because it isn't dragged down by so much legacy-handling. it's too young to realize it shouldn't be doing as well as it is (please note, i like aperture better from a user interface standpoint, but compare lightroom to adobe's other apps, and you'll start to see my point).
now they're going to try to spot-weld user interface elements from the adobe apps to macromedia and vice versa? they may as well codename creative suite 3 "it lives!" for the frakenstein it's going to resemble.
If Adobe was smart, they would come on stage during Steve's WWDC keynote and announce the immediate availabiliy of a public beta of CS3. It's the least they could do for their customers, since we not only have to wait another 8 months for the CS3 release, but have to pay for it too. Adobe has had over a year now to be working on Universal Binaries of their applications, and they don't have a single one out the door yet.
am i the only one old enough to recall that adobe's photoshop was the LAST major app to make an OS X compatible transition? remember when steve actually cited them BY NAME ON STAGE? this is hardly new. what confuses me is wasn't it chizen HIMSELF who asked steve tongue-in-cheek "what took you so long?" at the intel transition announcement? he made it sound like this was what adobe was WAITING for.
They have a clear, published schedule when they deliver upgrades, and they are sticking to it. It's not their fault Apple decided to switch architectures while having full knowledge of Adobe's public shipping schedule beforehand. In the meantime, they're busy with the Adobe/Macromedia merger, and have very little extra resources they can throw at CS3:Universal.
They already have CS:3 Universal. They have shown it off at a few shows. Its just not finished yet. But I do agree, they should try their hand at a public beta ala Quark and MS. It would help Apple and frankly help Adobe get some sales they may not otherwise get until next year.
They need to announce that if you buy CS2 from September on, you'll get CS3 when it comes out.
Otherwise, Adobe's sales are going to tank between Fall '06 and Spring '07.
i agree, except that it seems like anyone who has needed any new features in the CS2 suite have already jumped on board. in other words, i'm not sure adobe would want to go through the trouble of managing the free upgrade path for what they would probably feel is a negligible number of users (comparatively speaking). might be helpful, though for some production studios who have been working with a few licenses up until now, and they could finish out there seats in one fell swoop, with the promise of upgrades.
p.s. um, everyone's throwing around this "CS3:Universal" like it's a shipping name. is it, or is it just something everyone thinks sounds good and that's what we're calling it now until we hear differently?
If Adobe was smart, they would come on stage during Steve's WWDC keynote and announce the immediate availabiliy of a public beta of CS3. It's the least they could do for their customers, since we not only have to wait another 8 months for the CS3 release, but have to pay for it too. Adobe has had over a year now to be working on Universal Binaries of their applications, and they don't have a single one out the door yet.
i don't know about a public beta, but i definitely do think Adobe will be there to show off CS3 on Intel Macs during the keynote. I'm hoping this comes with an announcement of a release date sometime in the fall. It's not just a problem for Apple, Adobe is beginning to have a big problem trying to sell CS2, when CS3 is coming soon-ish. They could use a jump in the release schedule as much as Apple would benefit from one.
Comments
Originally posted by Keda
People are getting caught up in a lot of artificial benchmarks and filter tests, but no one is talking about the system's usability. Do you pixel pushers really run filters all day? Rosetta is NOT Classic. PhotoShop is extremely usable in this environment.
And this seems like an opportunity for certain users who've chosen to be early Intel Mac adaptors to learn how to use Rosetta-translated PS more effectively.
People tend to forget that user (in)efficiency/performance sometimes has at least as much a factor in productivity as system/software (in)efficiency/performance. I can be more productive with certain tasks on my 600Mhz iBook G3 than some users on faster systems simply because of having skill at getting more from less.
Originally posted by bjewett
I'd cut Adobe a break. They are a business, and transitioning their software well to a new *processor* will take some time.
Brian
You mean the same processor their Windosw version of the software runs on. They already have the CPU optimized assembler code where they need it. This isn't about coding or even a transition to Xcode, because they are almost done with that too. it's about not wanting to do QA on reorganized and recompiled code. It's a major QA hassle, but with the way they already have platform neutral code, not that much new code to actually write.
Originally posted by paramount57
Someone posted a comment recently (was it Cringely? ) about Apple buying Adobe allow Apple to take a hostage against Microsoft from dumping Office for OS X.
With this lukewarm announcement from Adobe, I would bet strategic analysts at Apple are cranking the numbers right now. Owned by Apple, Adobe would be told what their development priorities are and Apple would own the creative platform.
this is an intriguing notion: Apple could manipulate the release of features to favor their own OS, (kind of the reverse of what we see now) and optimize for their own hardware. Perhaps it would entice quite a few switchers. they probably have the cash to do it. 8)
Originally posted by plokoonpma
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
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few more programs almost every day.
In order to get Motion to run properly, you need a computer that is at least a year and a half old with a very high end video card. With the latest version of Final Cut Studio coming out soon, I am afraid I am either going to have to do one of the following when I find out my current g5 is not good enough to run the latest version of Motion:
A) Buy a new G5 Tower in the next few months to be able to run it.
C) Keep my current setup and go buy a macpro when they come out and have the two working between each other using external hard-drives. Which is just a waste of time and a hassle, along with the fact that i am still paying off student loans, isn't likely to happen.
All of these options just make the next year dealing with computer and software upgrades appear to be not very fun. This combined with the fact that whenever I do go and sell my G5, I won't get nearly what I would have gotten for a two year old machine a few years ago before the intel transition was announced, when everyone else begins dumping their G4 and G5s as well.
Apple is obviously a very strong company right now with all the ipods they are selling, you would think that with them going to intel they could at least afford to cut the price off all the mac machines as a whole, i very highly doubt the macpros are going to be cheaper than the current powermacs. This would also help in getting people to switch to a mac. The more that the realities of this intel transition come into focus, the more it seems that the loyal customers are the ones getting screwed.
How many have heard the repeated pleeding by Steve to move to Xcode? it seems to be like a mantra that each WWDC, there is a plead to move to XCode; programmers, if you're out there, if Apple says move to Xcode or what have you, there is normally a bloody good reason for it!
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few more programs almost every day.
In order to get Motion to run properly, you need a computer that is at least a year and a half old with a very high end video card. With the latest version of Final Cut Studio coming out soon, I am afraid I am either going to have to do one of the following when I find out my current g5 is not good enough to run the latest version of Motion:
A) Buy a new G5 Tower in the next few months to be able to run it.
C) Keep my current setup and go buy a macpro when they come out and have the two working between each other using external hard-drives. Which is just a waste of time and a hassle, along with the fact that i am still paying off student loans, isn't likely to happen.
All of these options just make the next year dealing with computer and software upgrades appear to be not very fun. This combined with the fact that whenever I do go and sell my G5, I won't get nearly what I would have gotten for a two year old machine a few years ago before the intel transition was announced, when everyone else begins dumping their G4 and G5s as well.
Apple is obviously a very strong company right now with all the ipods they are selling, you would think that with them going to intel they could at least afford to cut the price off all the mac machines as a whole, i very highly doubt the macpros are going to be cheaper than the current powermacs. This would also help in getting people to switch to a mac. The more that the realities of this intel transition come into focus, the more it seems that the loyal customers are the ones getting screwed.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop.
I do. I edit about 200-300 photographs a day, and use only Photoshop.
Originally posted by a_greer
NEVA GONNA HAPPEN
Apple doesnt do windows software, and without a windows version, no place in their right mind would use it for production in the current PC marketplace.
Also, can Apple risk pissing off Adobe without facing increases in licensing fees for .pdf? you think Adobe cheared at the site of Preview.app and PDF printing out of the box? no but they were likely getting a license fee, and Apple will probably have to pay up at every magor release...so...dont bite the hand that controls the price on PDF
Let me clear this licensing fee control issue up once and for all.
During the merger us NeXT folks were debating the surcharge tax that Display Postscript added on to Openstep ($10/copy). At that time the $799/user cost for Openstep and $4999 for Openstep Developer along with $25,000 for EOF and eventually $50,000 for WOF ObjC such a tax was negligible.
However, we were going to compete against Microsoft and when the cost of WOF was reduced to $699 and Developer was going to be FREE it became clear that $10/user to Adobe was a lot of money.
The decision to switch to Display PDF was quickly prototyped.
The fact that Adobe had released the specifications for PDF it was up to Apple to develop a Display PDF that complied with the latest publically released specifications.
Adobe keeps a competitive advantage by being one full revision ahead of these released specs.
When DisplayPDF came out it was PDF 1.4 compliant and Adobe was already using PDF 1.5. The current relationship is PDF 1.5 to PDF 1.6. This trend will continue.
Apple however pays NO LICENSING FEES. The advantages that PDF 1.6 concern issues of ECMAScript, DOM, SOAP, and some other non-pdf plugins.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/dev...reference.html
Apple has agreed to be 1 revision behind.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/dev...ary/index.html
The differences between the PDF Library SDK and that of the Acrobat Library SDK are clarified.
If Apple provided the extensibility of the Acrobat Professional SDK inside of Preview.app it would create a major rift between the two companies. This area of the market is not one Apple has a vested interest in other than being the OS platform provider.
This battle is for Quark and Adobe to beat each other into a pulp.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/pdf/
Note: PDF 1.5 Document Compatibility
Take advantage of PDF 1.5.
It's an amicable relationship that was hammered out during the Rhapsody -> OS X transition.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Hardly any professional Photoshop user only uses Photoshop. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, and a few more programs almost every day.
I use it for web design so most of those above are of no use to me. Photoshop and a good text editor is all I need. Thankfully the text editors are all universal now but that just leaves Photoshop/ImageReady as the app I MUST have. I could get by with Fireworks but I don't really like it and that's probably less likely to go Universal as soon as Photoshop as v8 was only out a couple of months ago.
That analogy is fitting for many topics on rumor sites, e.g. the ridiculous volume (in amount and loudness) of gotta-know-before-it's-announced pre-Keynote impatience.
Very true, but I have to admit that I'm one of them. It's fun to anticipate and nature to explore new things. However, patience is a virtue, especially when you expect the perfection that you will never get.
My final word... At least we don't have to use Windows. (It's a scary thought, and imagine how impatient Windows users must be for Vista right now. Intel or PPC, OS X is all that really matters to me.)
I am planning on picking up a notebook 15" (probably a duo model, hard to tell since we don't know Apple's plans) in May. It will be used to put together a new product catalog (hopefully using InDesign).
I wonder if it will perform OK?
ah well, adobe is beginning to suffer from a microsoftian problem of being TOO big and having to incorporate too many other apps in any change to any single app, couple with backwards compatibility so as to not break previous files and workflows at production houses. compare this all to lightroom, which seems to be on the ball with new beta updates regularly, lower system requirements, etc. it's light on its feet because it isn't dragged down by so much legacy-handling. it's too young to realize it shouldn't be doing as well as it is (please note, i like aperture better from a user interface standpoint, but compare lightroom to adobe's other apps, and you'll start to see my point).
now they're going to try to spot-weld user interface elements from the adobe apps to macromedia and vice versa? they may as well codename creative suite 3 "it lives!" for the frakenstein it's going to resemble.
Originally posted by rok
am i the only one old enough to recall that adobe's photoshop was the LAST major app to make an OS X compatible transition?
I think you're thinking of Quark XPress.
Way to dig up old threads, btw
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
I think you're thinking of Quark XPress.
Way to dig up old threads, btw
okay, ONE of the last... steve still mentioned adobe by name during a keynote while everyone was waiting on a carbonized version of photoshop.
re: old thread, not even sure how i stumbled in here, but i thought i would throw in my ten cents (the first two are free).
heck, cut me some slack, i've been in the midst of an international move for the past month. i'm lucky i know what day it is anymore.
Originally posted by rok
am i the only one old enough to recall that adobe's photoshop was the LAST major app to make an OS X compatible transition? remember when steve actually cited them BY NAME ON STAGE? this is hardly new. what confuses me is wasn't it chizen HIMSELF who asked steve tongue-in-cheek "what took you so long?" at the intel transition announcement? he made it sound like this was what adobe was WAITING for.
They have a clear, published schedule when they deliver upgrades, and they are sticking to it. It's not their fault Apple decided to switch architectures while having full knowledge of Adobe's public shipping schedule beforehand. In the meantime, they're busy with the Adobe/Macromedia merger, and have very little extra resources they can throw at CS3:Universal.
Otherwise, Adobe's sales are going to tank between Fall '06 and Spring '07.
Originally posted by Frank777
They need to announce that if you buy CS2 from September on, you'll get CS3 when it comes out.
Otherwise, Adobe's sales are going to tank between Fall '06 and Spring '07.
i agree, except that it seems like anyone who has needed any new features in the CS2 suite have already jumped on board. in other words, i'm not sure adobe would want to go through the trouble of managing the free upgrade path for what they would probably feel is a negligible number of users (comparatively speaking). might be helpful, though for some production studios who have been working with a few licenses up until now, and they could finish out there seats in one fell swoop, with the promise of upgrades.
p.s. um, everyone's throwing around this "CS3:Universal" like it's a shipping name. is it, or is it just something everyone thinks sounds good and that's what we're calling it now until we hear differently?
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
If Adobe was smart, they would come on stage during Steve's WWDC keynote and announce the immediate availabiliy of a public beta of CS3. It's the least they could do for their customers, since we not only have to wait another 8 months for the CS3 release, but have to pay for it too. Adobe has had over a year now to be working on Universal Binaries of their applications, and they don't have a single one out the door yet.
i don't know about a public beta, but i definitely do think Adobe will be there to show off CS3 on Intel Macs during the keynote. I'm hoping this comes with an announcement of a release date sometime in the fall. It's not just a problem for Apple, Adobe is beginning to have a big problem trying to sell CS2, when CS3 is coming soon-ish. They could use a jump in the release schedule as much as Apple would benefit from one.
One more week. Then we should at least know more.