[voodoo]

My opinion of Adobe is very low these days. To me they are the Microsith of the creative software industry.

They have the CS suite, like MS has Office - both have become behemoths that are less and less impressive with each consecutive release.

The only thing that could save Adobe is if Apple would simply buy them. Apple doesn't need its own money to buy things. This could be done in co-operation with an investment bank.

V

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

My opinion of Adobe is very low these days. To me they are the Microsith of the creative software industry.

We agree. Ever since the bean counters took over they've been pushing more and more bloated upgrades, yet they still haven't fixed the problems with Photoshop's color engine, among other things. I don't think Adobe really cares about its customers anymore except as a source of revenue.

edit: This thought has grown since I posted, so I thought I'd finish it.

The thing which most clearly signals to me Adobe's decline is the amount of hype coming from them. I don't mean advertising: I've worked on and off in advertising for 15 years, so I know all about it. When I say hype I mean that it seems, to me, that Adobe now believes its own bullshit. To me, this is shown more clearly with InDesign that anything else. When Adobe first announced they were working on a new layout program there was a lot of interest in the community because anyone who has worked with Quark, both the company and the program, has an ambivalent attitude towards them. It's an extremely powerful and flexible tool with some serious limitations, and dealing with Quark the company was sometimes like dealing with a spoiled child.

Simply put, the first two versions of ID were average at best. But to read the statements coming from Adobe you'd think they had reinvented the entire process of desktop publishing. ID 3/CS was the first version which even came close to being feature-complete compared with Quark, and 4/CS2 has made some more improvements. ID is now a solid program with some advantages over Quark. But with these improvements have come some serious bloat and, more importantly to me, there are some serious issues with the program which haven't been resolved. The same is true with Photoshop and Illustrator: more and more features of dubious use are added with each release which some basic, serious issues with the programs themselves aren't addressed. To me it seems that Adobe is being led by the marketers and not the engineers or issues from their userbase. This wasn't always the case. Abode software was once known for working well and being pretty lean, IMO.

So that's what's bugging me. I haven't upgraded my home machine past CS, because the expense just isn't worth it. Some of the places I work have upgraded, and some haven't, for the same reason. I gotta go, and I probably could've said all that better, but there it is.

[Horsepoo!!!]

.....

[Horsepoo!!!]

Hi mom!

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This conversation has nothing to do with the power of a machine. The G5 is more powerful than some of the supported systems for Soundbooth. If the PowerPC simply couldn't do it, nobody would have a problem here.

Very few PPC G5 Macs have the power of even the midrange Core Duo Macs. If you were in charge of Adobe, would you want to waste time converting SSE3 code to Altivec code just to support a range of computers that aren't even being sold anymore? Even worse which will EOL by the time your software is released?

Intel Macs cannot run all the apps a PowerPC Mac can. Only apps compiled for Intel and apps that run properly in Rosetta will work. That is not "all."

Um, ok... All of my PPC apps run in Rosetta... And they pretty much run as fast as they do on my 1.5Ghz PowerBook. But I'm sure some PPC apps don't run on Rosetta, I just haven't found them. Obviously that doesn't mean they don't exist, I'm sure they do... probably.

Actually, most people who use Adobe apps will not have an Intel Mac because Adobe is holding up the transition of the Creative Suite to Intel.

People using Adobe software wouldn't be Audio pros as Adobe don't currently make any Audio software... ALL Pro audio software is intel now, this is the market that Adobe want.

[production_coordinator]

IMHO, people are making a very big deal out of nothing.

It looks like adobe took a Windows program and ported it to OS X, and they didn't feel like making a PowerPC version. I probably would have done the same thing to be honest. I only own PPC systems and I'm 100% fine with this. It's a new program and I don't think it's a "must have" program at this point. By the time I would want to play with it, I'll probably have a new Intel system.

Mountains over mole hills...

I remember having a PowerPC 603ev processor... and withing a few years (2) some software required a G3 or more.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

I remember having a PowerPC 603ev processor... and withing a few years (2) some software required a G3 or more.

The power difference between the PPC 603ev and the G3 is immense and this transistion took far longer than the PPC being dumped for the 'not-so-more-poweful' Intel architecture.

A Core Duo can be faster than a dual G5, but not that much and not always. The PPC 603ev was always immensely more slow than the G3.

This is best demonstrated by the fact that even today the G3 is supported by many many apps, years after the last G3 based Mac was sold.

V

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The power difference between the PPC 603ev and the G3 is immense and this transistion took far longer than the PPC being dumped for the 'not-so-more-poweful' Intel architecture.

The Core Duo is much more powerful than the PPC it replaced, try running Logic Pro 7.2 on a PowerBook and then run it on a MacBook Pro. The difference is vast.

A Core Duo can be faster than a dual G5, but not that much and not always. The PPC 603ev was always immensely more slow than the G3.

If you really believe that first sentence then you've not actually used one of the new intel Macs.

This is best demonstrated by the fact that even today the G3 is supported by many many apps, years after the last G3 based Mac was sold.
V

And the Pentium 2 is still supported by many many apps on the Windows platform... doesn't make it a powerful processor.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The power difference between the PPC 603ev and the G3 is immense and this transistion took far longer than the PPC being dumped for the 'not-so-more-poweful' Intel architecture.

A Core Duo can be faster than a dual G5, but not that much and not always. The PPC 603ev was always immensely more slow than the G3.

This is best demonstrated by the fact that even today the G3 is supported by many many apps, years after the last G3 based Mac was sold.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to completely agree with what bloodline said just above.

You're wrong in every way that matters, and quite a bit more than doubly so if you acknowledge the existence of a laptop market (which never made it past the G4).

Did you know Tesla had this really great concept of "electricity from the air"? Do you have any idea how much more elegant that would have been than this stupid wire-based **** we have to deal with today? The superiority of this concept is best demonstrated by the number of websites that still talk about it, today.

The PPC had the more elegant design - CONCEPT. Fifteen years ago. The latest PPCs have very little to do with that design concept, and any argument that they were still somehow RISC processors pretty much went out the window the minute the Altivec command set addition was revealed.

The elegance of running any Intel-ported audio software on a goddamn cheapo $1000 entry-level MacBook makes doing the same on a year-old $3000 G4 Powerbook look like a stunted pig on brick skates.

It just isn't even funny.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by bloodline 

The Core Duo is much more powerful than the PPC it replaced, try running Logic Pro 7.2 on a PowerBook and then run it on a MacBook Pro. The difference is vast.

And because the G4 is the latest processor in the PowerPC line, that is totally a valid comparison and not at all slanted.

Originally Posted by bloodline 

If you really believe that first sentence then you've not actually used one of the new intel Macs.

OK, benchmark a 1.8 GHz Core Duo and compare it to a dual 2.7 GHz G5. Report back here and let us know how universally faster Core Duo-based computers are. Oh, heck, go ahead and bench a 2.33 GHz Core Duo while we're at it.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And because the G4 is the latest processor in the PowerPC line, that is totally a valid comparison and not at all slanted.

For the majority of computer sales - the portable market - the G4 WAS the latest processor in the PowerPC line, so yes, it is a completely valid comparison.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

For the majority of computer sales - the portable market - the G4 WAS the latest processor in the PowerPC line, so yes, it is a completely valid comparison.

No, it was a slanted comparison. The G4 was a fairly outdated chip that was never replaced because Apple couldn't get a decent chip into its laptops. If you want to make that comparison, OK, just acknowledge that you're comparing a processor from five years ago to a processor from this year rather than the PowerPC to the Core Duo.

It's like comparing the G5 to the Pentium 2 and justifying it with, "Well, a lot of people still use old PCs!"

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, it was a slanted comparison. The G4 was a fairly outdated chip that was never replaced because Apple couldn't get a decent chip into its laptops.

That's unpossible!

The PowerPC is the MUCH more elegant architecture! It is inconceivable that it be less flexible, nay, even COMPLETELY USELESS beyond a certain point!



Enough of this idiocy!

The Intel-based quad Xeon smartly outperforms the PPC predecessor it replaced.
The Intel-based Mac mini completely wipes the floor with its PPC predecessor.
The Intel-based laptops completely wipe the floor with their in-your-eyes-not-comparable-but-somehow-stuck-much-better-architecture-in-a-timewarp PPC predecessors.
The Intel-based iMacs compare similarly to their PPC predecessors.

Yes, the Intel machines are more powerful (in many cases much more powerful) than the PPCs they replace.

Coming along with the argument of comparing a LOW-end chip with the previous-generation HIGH-end in a machine that cost more than three times as much is just a plump straw-man argument.

[TETENAL]

The high-end G5s were competitive. For mid and low-end users the Intel-switch was a godsend though. The MacBooks are Core 2 Duos now. When would we have seen a dual-core 64 bit PowerPC processor in iBooks? Not in this decade. And I doubt that IBM would have invested much in the G5's future. They seem to be too busy making gaming console chips.

Anyway, all that doesn't change the fact that there is no technical reason why Adobe doesn't make a PowerPC version of Soundbooth. They could if they wanted to. They just don't see money for the effort it would take. So they just don't want to.

I don't see Apple at fault here. If they would not have switched that wouldn't have changed Adobe's cost/benefit analysis. We still wouldn't have a PowerPC version of Soundbooth probably.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Anyway, all that doesn't change the fact that there is no technical reason why Adobe doesn't make a PowerPC version of Soundbooth. They could if they wanted to. They just don't see money for the effort it would take. So they just don't want to.

Exactly. This is mostly a business decision.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I don't see Apple at fault here. If they would not have switched that wouldn't have changed Adobe's cost/benefit analysis. We still wouldn't have a PowerPC version of Soundbooth probably.

After reading the pointless ppc vs intel posts, it's nice to read something meaningful.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

My opinion of Adobe is very low these days. To me they are the Microsith of the creative software industry.

They have the CS suite, like MS has Office - both have become behemoths that are less and less impressive with each consecutive release.

The only thing that could save Adobe is if Apple would simply buy them. Apple doesn't need its own money to buy things. This could be done in co-operation with an investment bank.

Can't agree with any of this. Both Office and Creative Suite are very impressive packages.

Moreover, a Mac user could do without Office, because there now exist other products that approximate the capabilities of Office, like NeoOffice. But nothing comes close to Creative Suite, and Photoshop is pretty much irreplaceable for pro work.

Apple buy Adobe? There's no real benefit to be seen.

After Apple bought Emagic, the underlying technology of Logic led to newer technology (like Audio Units) and newer programs (like Soundtrack and GarageBand). There is no underlying technology in Creative Suite that Apple would want to integrate into the wider OS.

Apple wants Abode to adopt Image Units into Photoshop, but they aren't going to buy them for only that reason. Abode may in fact adopt more OS X technology on their own. Photoshop did use Altivec for many things. Abobe might leverage Image Units, or they might not. Does it really matter?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That's unpossible!

The PowerPC is the MUCH more elegant architecture! It is inconceivable that it be less flexible, nay, even COMPLETELY USELESS beyond a certain point!

I thought I would quote this for you, since you bring up straw man arguments later in your post. Refer to this to see what one actually looks like. I've never said anything along these lines. I have simply said that PowerPCs are powerful enough to run this software, but Adobe just decided it didn't care. That is not the same thing as saying they will be infinitely useful. No chip will.

Originally Posted by analogika 

The Intel-based iMacs compare similarly to their PPC predecessors.

Yes, the Intel machines are more powerful (in many cases much more powerful) than the PPCs they replace.

Yes, Intel machines are slightly more powerful than the G5s they replaced and a lot more powerful than the G4s they replaced. It's the same as if Apple had released speed-bumped G5s. This is not the same thing as saying the PowerPC is just categorically too weak to compare.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Coming along with the argument of comparing a LOW-end chip with the previous-generation HIGH-end in a machine that cost more than three times as much is just a plump straw-man argument.

I wasn't the one who was trying to argue that the reason a MacBook is supported but not a G5 is that the MacBook is just so much more powerful. Since bloodline was, I suggested he look at the actual numbers to see whether this is the case. It's not a straw man if you're accurately representing somebody's argument.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

After Apple bought Emagic, the underlying technology of Logic led to newer technology (like Audio Units) and newer programs (like Soundtrack and GarageBand).

Brief correction: The Audio Unit plug-in standard was planned and implemented LONG before Apple bought Emagic.

Emagic gave them Logic and GarageBand, but that's it (not that that isn't enough! ).

I'm still majorly pissed off at Apple for killing SoundDiver after the takeover.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I thought I would quote this for you, since you bring up straw man arguments later in your post. Refer to this to see what one actually looks like. I've never said anything along these lines. I have simply said that PowerPCs are powerful enough to run this software, but Adobe just decided it didn't care. That is not the same thing as saying they will be infinitely useful. No chip will.


Yes, Intel machines are slightly more powerful than the G5s they replaced and a lot more powerful than the G4s they replaced. It's the same as if Apple had released speed-bumped G5s. This is not the same thing as saying the PowerPC is just categorically too weak to compare.


I wasn't the one who was trying to argue that the reason a MacBook is supported but not a G5 is that the MacBook is just so much more powerful. Since bloodline was, I suggested he look at the actual numbers to see whether this is the case. It's not a straw man if you're accurately representing somebody's argument.

No, bloodline wasn't.

Bloodline said this:

Originally Posted by bloodline 

The Core Duo is much more powerful than the PPC it replaced, try running Logic Pro 7.2 on a PowerBook and then run it on a MacBook Pro. The difference is vast.

The Core Duo laptops are SO much faster than the Powerbook G4s THAT THEY REPLACED, especially in his chosen field of audio engineering, that it's really kind of difficult to see what your point is.

I actually listed a bunch of Apple lines and the Intel-based products that replaced them, and, lo and behold! - all of them are substantially faster than the PPC products THEY REPLACED.

And you still haven't responded to my argument that for the BIGGEST PART OF THE MARKET (portables), THE G5 NEVER REPLACED THE G4. In that case, the only valid comparison to be made AT ALL (since we can't compare fantasy products) is the Powerbook G4 against the Core Duo MacBooks.

Are you really willing to reduce your argument to "well, that's not A LOT faster, that's just substantially faster"?

[Salty]

OK what's the point? You're mad that you can't run an app that you didn't even know about before? Would you have been just as mad if they'd left it windows only? seriously this is just getting silly people.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No, bloodline wasn't.

Bloodline said this:


The Core Duo laptops are SO much faster than the Powerbook G4s THAT THEY REPLACED, especially in his chosen field of audio engineering, that it's really kind of difficult to see what your point is.

I actually listed a bunch of Apple lines and the Intel-based products that replaced them, and, lo and behold! - all of them are substantially faster than the PPC products THEY REPLACED.

I think perhaps we are talking about different topics. Nobody is debating the fact that computers are usually replaced with somewhat faster models. That's not an argument — it's just a statement of fact that could be used to support an argument.

The question here (as far as I've been able to detect) is whether Intel Macs are so much faster than any PowerPC Mac that it's unreasonable to expect something that runs on the lowest Intel chip to be able to run on a PowerPC Mac. The answer to that question is no. If you're talking about something else, please enlighten me.

Originally Posted by analogika 

And you still haven't responded to my argument that for the BIGGEST PART OF THE MARKET (portables), THE G5 NEVER REPLACED THE G4. In that case, the only valid comparison to be made AT ALL (since we can't compare fantasy products) is the Powerbook G4 against the Core Duo MacBooks.

Perhaps you could explicitly state the conclusion I'm supposed to reach from that fact?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Salty 

OK what's the point? You're mad that you can't run an app that you didn't even know about before? Would you have been just as mad if they'd left it windows only? seriously this is just getting silly people.

OK, we'll wait until all the developers announce "We are going to support all Macs except for Salty's, just because we don't care about him" and see how you take it.

The big issue is not specifically Soundbooth, but ignoring PowerPC users. I don't want developers to get the idea that I don't matter.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Perhaps you could explicitly state the conclusion I'm supposed to reach from that fact?

The only conclusion to be drawn from that fact is that bloodline is absolutely correct:

The Core Duo offerings that replaced the PowerPC machines are tremendously faster; in fact, they're not even in the same ballpark wrt some applications.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The question here (as far as I've been able to detect) is whether Intel Macs are so much faster than any PowerPC Mac that it's unreasonable to expect something that runs on the lowest Intel chip to be able to run on a PowerPC Mac. The answer to that question is no. If you're talking about something else, please enlighten me.

No; the point is that it's unreasonable to expect developers to transfer software that has been thoroughly optimized for one processor architecture to another architecture that has been rendered obsolete.

And that it's unreasonable to go clamoring that this is the end of the world, when in fact this piece of software has just been ported TO the Mac OS not DESPITE, but BECAUSE OF the processor change. It would NEVER have happened if Apple were still on PPC, and oddly, nobody except potential switchers would ever have bitched about it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No; the point is that it's unreasonable to expect developers to transfer software that has been thoroughly optimized for one processor architecture to another architecture that has been rendered obsolete.

Obsolete? Did the 2.1 GHz Core Duo render the 1.8 GHz Core Duo obsolete and thus not worthy of support? Did the introduction of the Mac Pro mean that developers should ignore the iMac? ("Well, that bug does show up on the Core 2 Duo, but dude, there's a faster chip — that iMac is so obsolete!")

Heck, as far as power is concerned, if the quad G5 is obsolete, the MacBook is extremely ****ing obsolete. Or is it just that things are obsolete when analogika decides he doesn't care about them anymore, rather than because they are actually no longer useful for a given purpose?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Obsolete? Did the 2.1 GHz Core Duo render the 1.8 GHz Core Duo obsolete and thus not worthy of support? Did the introduction of the Mac Pro mean that developers should ignore the iMac? ("Well, that bug does show up on the Core 2 Duo, but dude, there's a faster chip — that iMac is so obsolete!")

Heck, as far as power is concerned, if the quad G5 is obsolete, the MacBook is extremely ****ing obsolete. Or is it just that things are obsolete when analogika decides he doesn't care about them anymore, rather than because they are actually no longer useful for a given purpose?

What the **** are you on about?

Seriously, dude.

[Chuckit]

Here's the Cliff's Notes version of this conversation:

• I want to be able to use programs on my computer
• Since you use a different kind of computer, you're totally OK with me not being able to run programs on my computer
• You believe that a processor upgrade renders the previous high-end system obsolete, even though it's actually still more powerful than most of the current systems

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Here's the Cliff's Notes version of this conversation:

• I want to be able to use programs on my computer
• Since you use a different kind of computer, you're totally OK with me not being able to run programs on my computer

Well, it obviously was never an issue to not be able to use this particular program on your Mac, else you would have been bitching all over these forums about how Apple needs to do something.

As a Mac user, it's nice to see that I will at some point actually be able to use this new software. It just so happens that the Intel switch is the SINGLE circumstance that made this possible.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

• You believe that a processor upgrade renders the previous high-end system obsolete, even though it's actually still more powerful than most of the current systems

I actually believe that completely switching over to a new processor architecture renders the old architecture obsolete in the long run.

After the G4 was released, a bunch of stuff came out that, for some reason or another, was G4-only - or where certain functionality was G4-only.

People bitched and moaned.

Life went on.

End of discussion.

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Here's the Cliff's Notes version of this conversation:

• I want to be able to use programs on my computer
• Since you use a different kind of computer, you're totally OK with me not being able to run programs on my computer
• You believe that a processor upgrade renders the previous high-end system obsolete, even though it's actually still more powerful than most of the current systems

Well I can't quote actual numbers, but when I run the "G5 only" Logic Demo songs on a 2Ghz Dual G5 PowerMac (2GB ram), it brought the machine to it's knees... only getting half way before running ut of CPU power to process in real time.

Running the same Logic Demo songs on my MacBook Pro 2Ghz (2GB Ram), it not only got through the song(s) but even had CPU capacity to spare.

When I used to use Logic 7.1 on my PowerBook 1.6Ghz (1Gb Ram), I would be constantly freezing tracks just so I could work on another track... it was a nightmare and very slow work. So the 32bit Core Duo laptop machine out performs a 64bit G5 desktop Machine that should (in theory) be in the same class (or better class, 64bit desktops are generally more powerful than 32bit Laptops). From this we can be pretty sure that by the time SoundBooth is released (next year!), The Core architecture will be far in advance of the PPC machines, this is the market Adobe are aiming for with their NEW software.