the main problem adobe had was that xcode was not a very good development environment. i have a friend who is very high up in adobe and the complaint has been that xcode was bad enough that it didn't make sense to just port the code over just for the hell of it. he did say, however, that apple was working very closely with them to improve xcode on a daily basis. so at least apple is serious about developing xcode.
another factor is that adobe is probably using the intel switch and vista delay as smokescreens to buy themselves more time to integrate the macromedia apps into the creative suite. it's a smart move on their part really. personally, i'll just wait out the first generation of intel powermacs and continue chugging along with cs2.
That's really the gist of it. I'll likely get a new Power Mac once it goes to its first revision. There are a lot of Sawtooth owners like myself who are ready to upgrade.
I'm running a FrankenSawtooth which has been upgraded to a 1GHZ processor.
Macworld says that anyone running less than a 1.2GHZ will see improvements when moving to the Intel iMac, so I expect moving to a new Power Mac this fall will still mean an improvement, even with Rosetta.
1. On the AppleInsider home page, why is this story listed with the "Inside Info" icon when it seems to be based upon public blogs?
2. If Adobe has truly been working on Lightroom for 3+ years as they claim (and presumably started writing it in that non-XCode development system) and since Lightroom indeed includes all of Adobe Camera Raw inside it (hence its more comprehensive raw conversions than Aperture) . . . then how come it was so easy to convert that to XCode? How does that jibe with the "pain" of converting Photoshop? Didn't Lightroom development teach Adobe anything about converting PS to XCode?
Adobe's argument is very, very weak.
Lightroom was written with xcode and is a much smaller program in terms of code.
Sounds valid to me. This transition is tough on Adobe, and on Adobe users. For now. With great long-term benefits to come. It's too bad, but that's reality. The only one to blame is IBM for not wanting to be in the personal computer processor business--and maybe not even them: it just wasn't a money-maker like consoles are.
God forbid we ever blame Apple. Let's face it, there's a lot they could have done to make this a lot easier, but Apple secrecy trumps all.
To my mind Adobe is forgetting where their roots are (they started their rise on the Mac). To put it more aggressively, Adobe starts to wipe their roots out deliberately. They forget about the easy way to get things done. Photoshop is getting more and more "windowesc" - Bloatware. I get more and more the impression, that Photoshop is developed with Windows as it's prime target (Force of marketshare?). We Mac users get what is left after a more or less poor done port. For me Adobe is slowly but steadily lost to the dark side of the force.
To much rant?
Simply untrue. Don't ever misconstrue the addition of features that customers are demanding, for bloat, where features are added just to get users to upgrade.
There is a good reason why PS is central to all graphics, photographic, and publishing systems. There is also a good reason why it is also the hub of hundreds of plug-ins and sister programs around the world.
The reason is that only PS enables its users to do almost anything they need to do within those industries. PS is also used in video.
PS is a program that is very easy to use on a casual level, while allowing the concentrated professional user to dig into the depths necessary to do incredibly sophisticated hi end commercial, and scientific projects.
There is simply no other program that can cater to those casual users, while satisfying the the needs of the most sophisticated user base at the same time.
And what even more people forget is that Metrowerks was financially supported by Apple for many years. Exactly how many years of life support is Apple supposed to give them? Especially once they became a clueless company that was failing to meet their users' (or Apple's) needs in anything approaching a timely fashion. This is a downright silly argument.
Metrowerks' ultimate demise has been obvious to the casual observer since 1999. Do you really think Apple didn't have a better perspective on it than the casual observer?
And where can you show that Apple gave Metroworks financial support, other than. perhaps, by purchasing the product for their own use (which they did for a while).
Lightroom was written with xcode and is a much smaller program in terms of code.
I agree. However, much of the reason Photoshop is the huge app it has become is that Adobe replicates their own imaging and interface infrastructure into the app, so that the code is fairly portable across the Mac and PC platforms.
While it's highly optimized, the situation is similar to how Windows sits atop Virtual PC on the Mac in order to run.
I would love to see what a pure Xcoded Photoshop clone, built just for the Mac platform, would look and perform like. My guess is that it would be a fraction of the size of Photoshop.
While it's not a real Photoshop competitor yet (no layers?), it's nice to see a new photo editor debut for Mac OS X.
Full 16-bit editing produces top quality results without sacrificing performance.
Um, 16 bit? Performance? How about quality.
I suppose that if you are only using it to update flikr than that's fine. But for the VAST majority of photoshop/aperture and even iphoto users I think that it is a non starter.
The casual observer will be able to tell the difference in photo quality if say for example they were to show their precious pics to friends on that brand new hidef TV.
But, I guess, if you shoot in 1-2mp range, then you might not care too much.
Comments
Originally posted by admactanium
the main problem adobe had was that xcode was not a very good development environment. i have a friend who is very high up in adobe and the complaint has been that xcode was bad enough that it didn't make sense to just port the code over just for the hell of it. he did say, however, that apple was working very closely with them to improve xcode on a daily basis. so at least apple is serious about developing xcode.
another factor is that adobe is probably using the intel switch and vista delay as smokescreens to buy themselves more time to integrate the macromedia apps into the creative suite. it's a smart move on their part really. personally, i'll just wait out the first generation of intel powermacs and continue chugging along with cs2.
That's really the gist of it. I'll likely get a new Power Mac once it goes to its first revision. There are a lot of Sawtooth owners like myself who are ready to upgrade.
I'm running a FrankenSawtooth which has been upgraded to a 1GHZ processor.
Macworld says that anyone running less than a 1.2GHZ will see improvements when moving to the Intel iMac, so I expect moving to a new Power Mac this fall will still mean an improvement, even with Rosetta.
Originally posted by bikertwin
1. On the AppleInsider home page, why is this story listed with the "Inside Info" icon when it seems to be based upon public blogs?
2. If Adobe has truly been working on Lightroom for 3+ years as they claim (and presumably started writing it in that non-XCode development system) and since Lightroom indeed includes all of Adobe Camera Raw inside it (hence its more comprehensive raw conversions than Aperture) . . . then how come it was so easy to convert that to XCode? How does that jibe with the "pain" of converting Photoshop? Didn't Lightroom development teach Adobe anything about converting PS to XCode?
Adobe's argument is very, very weak.
Lightroom was written with xcode and is a much smaller program in terms of code.
Originally posted by nagromme
Sounds valid to me. This transition is tough on Adobe, and on Adobe users. For now. With great long-term benefits to come. It's too bad, but that's reality. The only one to blame is IBM for not wanting to be in the personal computer processor business--and maybe not even them: it just wasn't a money-maker like consoles are.
God forbid we ever blame Apple. Let's face it, there's a lot they could have done to make this a lot easier, but Apple secrecy trumps all.
Originally posted by copeland
To my mind Adobe is forgetting where their roots are (they started their rise on the Mac). To put it more aggressively, Adobe starts to wipe their roots out deliberately. They forget about the easy way to get things done. Photoshop is getting more and more "windowesc" - Bloatware. I get more and more the impression, that Photoshop is developed with Windows as it's prime target (Force of marketshare?). We Mac users get what is left after a more or less poor done port. For me Adobe is slowly but steadily lost to the dark side of the force.
To much rant?
Simply untrue. Don't ever misconstrue the addition of features that customers are demanding, for bloat, where features are added just to get users to upgrade.
There is a good reason why PS is central to all graphics, photographic, and publishing systems. There is also a good reason why it is also the hub of hundreds of plug-ins and sister programs around the world.
The reason is that only PS enables its users to do almost anything they need to do within those industries. PS is also used in video.
PS is a program that is very easy to use on a casual level, while allowing the concentrated professional user to dig into the depths necessary to do incredibly sophisticated hi end commercial, and scientific projects.
There is simply no other program that can cater to those casual users, while satisfying the the needs of the most sophisticated user base at the same time.
Originally posted by sdfisher
And what even more people forget is that Metrowerks was financially supported by Apple for many years. Exactly how many years of life support is Apple supposed to give them? Especially once they became a clueless company that was failing to meet their users' (or Apple's) needs in anything approaching a timely fashion. This is a downright silly argument.
Metrowerks' ultimate demise has been obvious to the casual observer since 1999. Do you really think Apple didn't have a better perspective on it than the casual observer?
And where can you show that Apple gave Metroworks financial support, other than. perhaps, by purchasing the product for their own use (which they did for a while).
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Lightroom was written with xcode and is a much smaller program in terms of code.
I agree. However, much of the reason Photoshop is the huge app it has become is that Adobe replicates their own imaging and interface infrastructure into the app, so that the code is fairly portable across the Mac and PC platforms.
While it's highly optimized, the situation is similar to how Windows sits atop Virtual PC on the Mac in order to run.
I would love to see what a pure Xcoded Photoshop clone, built just for the Mac platform, would look and perform like. My guess is that it would be a fraction of the size of Photoshop.
While it's not a real Photoshop competitor yet (no layers?), it's nice to see a new photo editor debut for Mac OS X.
Originally posted by Frank777
I may get my chance sooner than I thought.
While it's not a real Photoshop competitor yet (no layers?), it's nice to see a new photo editor debut for Mac OS X.
Full 16-bit editing produces top quality results without sacrificing performance.
Um, 16 bit? Performance? How about quality.
I suppose that if you are only using it to update flikr than that's fine. But for the VAST majority of photoshop/aperture and even iphoto users I think that it is a non starter.
The casual observer will be able to tell the difference in photo quality if say for example they were to show their precious pics to friends on that brand new hidef TV.
But, I guess, if you shoot in 1-2mp range, then you might not care too much.
Originally posted by TednDi
Full 16-bit editing produces top quality results without sacrificing performance.
Um, 16 bit? Performance? How about quality.
I don't understand your post. Are you trying to say there is something wrong with the fact that it has full 16 bit editing?