[goMac]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

FWIW, I'm telling everyone who asks me to buy an Intel-powered Mac, as PPC is a dead architecture.

Exactly. When my girlfriend wanted to get a new laptop a few months ago, she was going to pick up a refurbish G4 iBook, but I wouldn't let her get a PPC. She got a Macbook instead.

IT recently upgraded all the techs at work to Intel, and we've already shifted our 1 to 1 deployment to Intel.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Exactly. When my girlfriend wanted to get a new laptop a few months ago, she was going to pick up a refurbish G4 iBook, but I wouldn't let her get a PPC. She got a Macbook instead.

IT recently upgraded all the techs at work to Intel, and we've already shifted our 1 to 1 deployment to Intel.

My brother is getting a MacBook and (hopefully) sending me his 12-inch G4 Powerbook, which I will use. But I'm still planning to get a MacBook next year.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

In a year when this application is released, PowerPC users assuredly won't be the most current.

No, but they'll still be fairly current — a lot more current, capability-wise, than the Core Solo Mini. You're right that they finally stopped selling G5s (huh, I missed that), but they were the top-of-theline Macs until just a couple of months ago. When this comes out, the last G5s will be — what? Almost a year old? That's kind of weak.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Your logic doesn't check out. Adobe creating a Mac version of an application that never had one is supporting the Mac more, not less.

I guess it depends on the "than" part of the comparison. It's "more than nothing at all," yes. It's also "less than full support" and "less than we hope for."

Originally Posted by goMac 

They did re-iterate their PowerPC support with already existing PowerPC apps.

Can you link to where they pledged any kind of support? All I can find is statements basically saying, "We don't care about PowerPC, but CS3 is far enough along that we're not planning to cut that one off just yet."

It's clear that you use Macintels, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised that you don't care about something that doesn't affect you. What I don't get is why you're surprised that people who are affected by this "PowerPC who?" logic might be unhappy. Nobody likes being a second-class citizen.

[kmkkid]

For those using PowerPC Macs:

Sell your Mac and pony up the extra to purchase a new Intel Mac. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to buy your PPC Mac, and I'm sure they wont care that Adobe isn't making a professional audio app for their platform.

[Chuckit]

I would love to — really — but I don't have $3,000 to "pony up the extra."

Also, some people actually need to run Classic.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

For those using PowerPC Macs:

Sell your Mac and pony up the extra to purchase a new Intel Mac. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to buy your PPC Mac, and I'm sure they wont care that Adobe isn't making a professional audio app for their platform.

There's no need for me to do that yet. With the exception of Quark, none of the big DTP apps are out for the Intel-powered machines yet, so my G5 is still State of the Art™. Even when they come out, they'll be Universal, so I will have native performance. I'm not planning on replacing my G5 until 2008. I will get a MacBook (or, maybe MacBook Pro, depending on what my money situation looks like in the spring) to start my own, personal Intel transition, but there's really no hurry. And, even when my G5 is officially obsolete, it will happily run Linux for years after.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I would love to — really — but I don't have $3,000 to "pony up the extra."

Also, some people actually need to run Classic.

There's a trade-off in EVERYthing.

Choose your poison, and leave it at that.

[thekrynn]

Originally Posted by analogika 

There's a trade-off in EVERYthing.

Choose your poison, and leave it at that.

Yeah, im my case, I could trade in my 2 dual g5s, a dual g4, as well as all the PCI cards in them as well.... or I could just go out and buy an mbox with protools on ebay for under 300 which will be a better audio program than anything adobe could put out.

Tons of alternatives on the market to get if Adobe's so picky about support.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, but they'll still be fairly current — a lot more current, capability-wise, than the Core Solo Mini. You're right that they finally stopped selling G5s (huh, I missed that), but they were the top-of-theline Macs until just a couple of months ago. When this comes out, the last G5s will be — what? Almost a year old? That's kind of weak.

Almost two years old actually. The Minis that will be out in a year will out power any of the G5's. (Apple no longer sells any Core Solo machines.)

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess it depends on the "than" part of the comparison. It's "more than nothing at all," yes. It's also "less than full support" and "less than we hope for."

It's "either take this or take nothing."

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Can you link to where they pledged any kind of support? All I can find is statements basically saying, "We don't care about PowerPC, but CS3 is far enough along that we're not planning to cut that one off just yet."

I don't have the link. Why would they dump PowerPC support that's already coded? They'll only dump PowerPC support when there are changes to be made that are not cost effective.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's clear that you use Macintels, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised that you don't care about something that doesn't affect you. What I don't get is why you're surprised that people who are affected by this "PowerPC who?" logic might be unhappy. Nobody likes being a second-class citizen.

Check my sig for my machines.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I would love to —�really — but I don't have $3,000 to "pony up the extra."

Also, some people actually need to run Classic.

If you still still still need to run Classic, you have much bigger problems than Soundbooth not being available for PowerPC.

Buy a Mac Mini then in a year for Soundbooth. Like I said, it will run better than your G5.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by thekrynn 

Yeah, im my case, I could trade in my 2 dual g5s, a dual g4, as well as all the PCI cards in them as well.... or I could just go out and buy an mbox with protools on ebay for under 300 which will be a better audio program than anything adobe could put out.

Tons of alternatives on the market to get if Adobe's so picky about support.

Exactly. No one is forcing you to run Soundbooth. There are other existing already coded already invested PowerPC ones anyway.

[thekrynn]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Exactly. No one is forcing you to run Soundbooth. There are other existing already coded already invested PowerPC ones anyway.

What they decide to do with their smaller software is definitly up to them. However, it would be very curious if they decided to discontinue PPC support by the release of, say, Creative Suite version 4. Given its a standard in the graphics industry, they'd be really shooting themselves in the foot. Most likely people are just going to keep their old hardware and use that with the latest version of CS that runs on it. In all actuality, the speed difference between my dual g4 and dual g5, doesnt seem to bother me that much when I'm running off a 14 drive raid.

Goes to show thats exactly what happened with entry level professional Avid systems. Now that they've let their whole midrange product range support disappear for the mac, everyone either has switched to FCP or run those ancient avid boards on g3s and g4s.. and hey, they do a pretty bang up job, even still. But, I bet Avid's kicking itself with what a huge amount of mac people they lost.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Buy a Mac Mini then in a year for Soundbooth. Like I said, it will run better than your G5.

I find that claim to be dubious. We'll see what the benchmarks have to say in a year. As it is now, the Mac Pros don't do that much better than the G5.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I find that claim to be dubious. We'll see what the benchmarks have to say in a year. As it is now, the Mac Pros don't do that much better than the G5.

The only G5's that really hold their own speed wise againt the current Mini are the Dual 2.7 and the Quad 2.5. Within a year I could see that lead disapearing completely.

[Big Mac]

Haha, what benchmarks are you looking at?

[thekrynn]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Haha, what benchmarks are you looking at?

Wow, yeah.. last time I checked, my dual 2.5 g5 destroys my intel duo 1.66 when compressing h264. Given a lot more ram on the g5, but still.. its a no contest.

[jamil5454]

I'm curious to hear what people think about Adobe Audition. It's not available for PPC Macs, yet nobody seems to be complaining.

Adobe decides to add Intel Mac support to a product that would have otherwise have been Windows-only and people complain. Maybe Adobe would have been better off keeping Soundbooth Windows-only.

I can understand why some people may be irritated that Soundbooth isn't supported on PPC Macs, but Adobe isn't taking anything away from anyone running a PPC Mac. It would be a totally different story if they suddenly announced that CS suite is only available for Intel Macs, screwing anyone with a PPC Mac, but that's not the case. Adobe isn't directly harming anyone by releasing Soundbooth for Intel Macs only.

I'm sure if Adobe never anounced a beta, and instead just out of the blue released Soundbooth next year, almost nobody would be complaining about the lack of PPC support. By that time it would well be understood that any development in a new major app would only make sense to be done on the Intel platform.

Plus, if you consider the possible lifetime Soundbooth might have, let's say at least 10 years, supporting PPC Macs for even 2 of those years isn't worth the extra resources spent to support a PPC codebase.

My opinion may be somewhat skewed though since I have a shiny new 20" iMac Core 2 Duo that I adore

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Haha, what benchmarks are you looking at?

I looked for about a minute and couldn't find the exact one's I wanted, but I found one that pretty well shows the performance deficit.

iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz versus others

I've noticed the Quicktime problem too. I think it's that QuickTime doesn't yet use SSE3. (Gee... Funny... Guess it takes time to port Pro things to Intel...)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by jamil5454 

I can understand why some people may be irritated that Soundbooth isn't supported on PPC Macs, but Adobe isn't taking anything away from anyone running a PPC Mac. It would be a totally different story if they suddenly announced that CS suite is only available for Intel Macs, screwing anyone with a PPC Mac, but that's not the case. Adobe isn't directly harming anyone by releasing Soundbooth for Intel Macs only.

Like Big Mac said, it isn't even quite that. It's that their reasoning for releasing it on Intel only is something like…

Originally Posted by jamil5454 

any development in a new major app would only make sense to be done on the Intel platform.

…this. And if we accept the premise that supporting the PowerPC platform isn't worthwhile, why should future product upgrades waste time and resources on it?

Anyway, this does seem a lot like being told, "Eh, just buy a Windows PC if you want to run our software." It's echoed almost exactly in this thread — "Buy a Mac Mini then." I'm not a PowerPC fanboy like Big Mac, but I've never much cared for that attitude.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I've noticed the Quicktime problem too. I think it's that QuickTime doesn't yet use SSE3. (Gee... Funny... Guess it takes time to port Pro things to Intel...)

Erm…no, actually, QuickTime has been ported to Intel. Otherwise, whether it used SSE3 would be a moot point. This is what I was saying about how portable code isn't just a pipe dream.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Erm…no, actually, QuickTime has been ported to Intel. Otherwise, whether it used SSE3 would be a moot point. This is what I was saying about how portable code isn't just a pipe dream.

The QuickTime port for Intel certainly wasn't "free", and probably took a lot of time, even porting the Intel code to Mac OS X again. I'm guessing why there probably aren't any processor specific optimizations. Just dealing with the endian issues, even on something already ported to Intel for Windows, would still be pretty messy.

I'm not sure were this idea of "endian safe code" is coming from. One way or another, someone has to deal with the porting issues. If you aren't, it's because you're dealing with a cross platform API where someone already sat down and took care of those issues for you. That doesn't mean your code is endian safe, it just means you're using endian safe API's.

But when you are coding something like QuickTime or Soundbooth you're going to be coding your own API's the whole way. I had a very comparatively small API written in Cocoa actually that even required some endian work done on it, because the functionality I wrote to extend Cocoa was written in C and dealt with some images, and of course images are endian dependent.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by thekrynn 

Yeah, im my case, I could trade in my 2 dual g5s, a dual g4, as well as all the PCI cards in them as well.... or I could just go out and buy an mbox with protools on ebay for under 300 which will be a better audio program than anything adobe could put out.

Tons of alternatives on the market to get if Adobe's so picky about support.

I can't quite tell if that's sarcasm there...but there's a couple of problems:

1) Since you bring them up: Apple's last two rounds of G5 machines didn't support PCI any longer, which, if you're an audio pro, is a LOT bigger issue than Adobe not offering Soundbooth for PowerPC. Because somehow, that hasn't been an issue for you for the past ten years it hasn't been available, either - why is it now, suddenly?

2) MBox and ProTools LE LOL go right ahead.

[lpkmckenna]

A lot of very petty whining about Adobe in this thread. Apple has also done exactly as Adobe has done here.

Remember when GarageBand was introduced in Jan '04? G4 only, even though the G4 iBook was only announced in Oct 2003. (A G3 can run GarageBand, but the software instruments and user interface will bring the system to a screeching halt.)

Remember when Motion was introduced in 2004? G5 only. (Later the specs was adjusted back a little bit for some newer PowerBooks). No PowerMac G4 can run Motion.

Remember when Aperture was introduced in late 2005? G5 only, and some PowerBooks. No PowerMac G4 can run Aperture.

I totally respect Adobe's perspective on this issue. Supporting a brand new, processor intensive app on PPC is financially unwise. Also, Adobe has left markets that Apple has taken from them, like with Premiere. Introducing a new audio app on the Mac, when Apple has so many audio products already, is enough of a gamble.

from Adobe:

Will there be a PowerPC version?

No. Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places. By focusing on Apple's future, we have been able to bring this powerful application to the Mac platform much more rapidly, and with a stronger feature set.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I expect the Mac game market will be Intel-only pretty soon, too. While Blizzard will always be a stalwart supporter, I fully anticipate the next Doom/Quake, Gears of War, and UT2007 to be Intel-only. Don't expect Halo 3 for PPC either.

[littlegreenspud]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I would guess a PowerPC version of this application would require a dual processor/dual core G5, which at that point means the only PowerPC users who would be able to use this app would be Powermac G5 owners anyway. Not a very large group for the amount of work that would have to be put into a PowerPC version.

Well, SoundEdit 16 used to run fine on my LC475.
If Soundbooth is to be the spiritual successor to SoundEdit 16 it should require a d@mn site less than that!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

A lot of very petty whining about Adobe in this thread. Apple has also done exactly as Adobe has done here.

Remember when GarageBand was introduced in Jan '04? G4 only, even though the G4 iBook was only announced in Oct 2003. (A G3 can run GarageBand, but the software instruments and user interface will bring the system to a screeching halt.)

Remember when Motion was introduced in 2004? G5 only. (Later the specs was adjusted back a little bit for some newer PowerBooks). No PowerMac G4 can run Motion.

Remember when Aperture was introduced in late 2005? G5 only, and some PowerBooks. No PowerMac G4 can run Aperture.

Those machines are all unsupported because they are simply not good enough. This is quite different from "Well, we could have supported those machines, but we just really don't care about G4 owners." (Or, alternately, "Holy crap, our programmers can't figure out how to call a byte-swapping function when they read from a file.")

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Introducing a new audio app on the Mac, when Apple has so many audio products already, is enough of a gamble.

Making your apps very processor-dependent is even more of a gamble. As the Ten Commandments of C put it: "Thou shalt foreswear, renounce, and abjure the vile heresy which claimeth that 'All the world's a VAX', and have no commerce with the benighted heathens who cling to this barbarous belief, that the days of thy program may be long even though the days of thy current machine be short."

The idea behind Universal Binaries was not, as goMac claims, just to be a temporary stopgap between PowerPC and Intel. The idea was to give developers a way to stop making their apps so unnecessarily dependent on one architecture. That way, when Apple decides to switch from Intel to Sun or MyReallyGreatChipStartup Inc., your apps will already be ready. Perhaps there is some really good reason why this is totally impossible in this one case, but to hear Adobe tell it, it sounds like they just don't give a crap about most of their Mac customer base (which is still on PPC).

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I expect the Mac game market will be Intel-only pretty soon, too. While Blizzard will always be a stalwart supporter

No way. It's financially feasible to write big apps that are cross-platform? To hear you and goMac tell it, I'd have to conclude that either Blizzard has not been supporting the Mac all this time or Blizzard has gone bankrupt, so they won't be making games in the future.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Those machines are all unsupported because they are simply not good enough.

Uh, a PowerBook G4 at 1.25 GHz can run Motion and Aperture, but a PowerMac G4 at dual 1.25 GHz cannot? Tell me another one.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The idea behind Universal Binaries was not, as goMac claims, just to be a temporary stopgap between PowerPC and Intel.

I never agreed with goMac on this point.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

To hear you and goMac tell it, I'd have to conclude that either Blizzard has not been supporting the Mac all this time or Blizzard has gone bankrupt, so they won't be making games in the future.

Uh, go back and read my post again. I specifically mentioned Blizzard.

[lpkmckenna]

John Gruber has commented extensively on this issue: Daring Fireball: Why Is Adobe Soundbooth Intel-Only?

[Big Mac]

The other thing no one has mentioned yet is that this development brings us that much closer to the endgame of developers saying, "Your computer can run Windows now, so we can drop OS X support without harming you." They'd use many of the same arguments, too.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The other thing no one has mentioned yet is that this development brings us that much closer to the endgame of developers saying, "Your computer can run Windows now, so we can drop OS X support without harming you." They'd use many of the same arguments, too.

Err, there's a rather big leap, especially since using your logic there Adobe should be telling us right now "you can run Windows now, so just do that to run Soundbooth!" That would have been even easier for Adobe to do, but instead they're bringing over an app that may not have ever come to the Mac if not for the Intel switch. So, I'm not sure how Adobe bringing over an app that is totally new to the Mac, thereby adding more software to the Mac platform, means the impending arrival of the doom scenario of "we won't make an OS X version, just run Windows." This whole announcement completely negates your "endgame" scenario.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spirit_VW 

Err, there's a rather big leap, especially since using your logic there Adobe should be telling us right now "you can run Windows now, so just do that to run Soundbooth!" That would have been even easier for Adobe to do, but instead they're bringing over an app that may not have ever come to the Mac if not for the Intel switch. So, I'm not sure how Adobe bringing over an app that is totally new to the Mac, thereby adding more software to the Mac platform, means the impending arrival of the doom scenario of "we won't make an OS X version, just run Windows." This whole announcement completely negates your "endgame" scenario.

It would involve the exact same logic employed here: "Oh, we'd have to put in more time to do another version. Just use this platform." I don't see why you can't see a connection.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It would involve the exact same logic employed here: "Oh, we'd have to put in more time to do another version. Just use this platform." I don't see why you can't see a connection.

There's a difference between "we're supporting Apple's new processor platform with this new app" and "we'll force our customers to buy a completely different OS if they want to run this app." I'm not trying to attack or defend Adobe's decision to support only the Intel Macs, but said decision really doesn't have anything to do with any theoretical "Macs can run Windows, so we don't need to do Mac ports at all anymore" scenario.

Look, for whatever reason, Adobe wouldn't port Soundbooth to the PPC Macs. Whether you think that's right or wrong is one issue. But they *are* bringing it over to the Intel Macs, which does mean that the Mac platform is getting a brand-new app we never would have gotten otherwise. That works *against* this fear & doom scenario of "it's easier to just make Mac users buy Windows to run our apps." This is *growing* the Mac software base.

And, incidentally, the Mac *user base* is growing as well, meaning there's *more* demand for OS X ports, not less - another point against the doom & gloom "endgame" scenario mentioned above.

If "Soundbooth is Intel-only" is such a horrible portent of the End Times and a sign of some Adobe laziness, why isn't Adobe just going with the even easier route of "just buy Windows to run Soundbooth and save us the time, money, and trouble of porting it at all" route?

(For the record, I do think making Soundbooth Intel-only is a little weird, but it is still a totally new Mac app, and I really have trouble seeing how it's a sign of the impending Macpocalypse.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spirit_VW 

There's a difference between "we're supporting Apple's new processor platform with this new app" and "we'll force our customers to buy a completely different OS if they want to run this app."

There's also a difference between "We're supporting Apple's new processor platform with this new app" and "We'll force our customers to buy a completely different computer if they want to run this app." Most developers to date have done the former. Adobe is doing the latter. I worry that many more developers will now take their lead.

Anyway, like I said, it is the same reasoning. I don't know why Adobe decided to do a halfway port on this particular app, but their reasons do bother me.

Originally Posted by Spirit_VW 

(For the record, I do think making Soundbooth Intel-only is a little weird, but it is still a totally new Mac app, and I really have trouble seeing how it's a sign of the impending Macpocalypse.)

Let me guess: You use an Intel Mac?

[Spirit_VW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's also a difference between "We're supporting Apple's new processor platform with this new app" and "We'll force our customers to buy a completely different computer if they want to run this app." Most developers to date have done the former. Adobe is doing the latter. I worry that many more developers will now take their lead.

Anyway, like I said, it is the same reasoning. I don't know why Adobe decided to do a halfway port on this particular app, but their reasons do bother me.

I do see what you're saying, but I still disagree. Again, I'm not debating the whole "why is Soundbooth Intel-only" thing, as I'm sure it's *possible* that Soundbooth *could* have been ported to the PPC. What I take issue with is the fear put forth by BigMac that Soundbooth being Intel-only is some portent of the end of all OS X ports, which is a conclusion I don't think can be successfully reached from the Soundbooth announcement at all. Again, if the fact that Macs can run Windows natively now is such a huge issue, and Adobe is too "lazy" to port Soundbooth to PPC, why are they even porting it at all? Why go through the time, money, and work to bring Soundbooth to the Intel Macs when, using this doom logic, they could just say "no, it's too hard, just buy Windows and run it, Intel Macs can do that just fine." Adobe's bringing over an app that, for whatever reason (that reason being the other subject of this thread), they don't want to bring to the PPC Macs - but it is still a new Mac app we've never had before. I do think it'd be cool if Soundbooth came to the PPC Macs, but the fact that it isn't in no way suggests that company are going to stop OS X ports altogether. That's quite an impressive jump to conclusions. Even without a PPC version, this is still a growth in the Macintosh software base.

Let me guess: You use an Intel Mac?

The household here has four PPC Macs of various vintages, and my new MacBook Pro. I don't see what that has to do with anything - as I said, I'd love to see a PPC version of Soundbooth for all the folks with G5s. I also won't be buying Soundbooth, because I have no need for it, so I really don't have anything invested in it, other than my desire to see the Mac software base grow, which it has with this announcement.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spirit_VW 

The household here has four PPC Macs of various vintages, and my new MacBook Pro. I don't see what that has to do with anything - as I said, I'd love to see a PPC version of Soundbooth for all the folks with G5s. I also won't be buying Soundbooth, because I have no need for it, so I really don't have anything invested in it, other than my desire to see the Mac software base grow, which it has with this announcement.

Personally, I would like to see my software base grow. If people decide to explicitly exclude me, that doesn't make me happy. I don't want developers to go, "Hey, he's using PowerPC. PowerPC is dead. Screw him." I think many people feel the same way I do. This is why I guessed that you were in a situation where a down-with-PPC mindset wouldn't cause you trouble.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The other thing no one has mentioned yet is that this development brings us that much closer to the endgame of developers saying, "Your computer can run Windows now, so we can drop OS X support without harming you." They'd use many of the same arguments, too.

If that was the case, we'd see that with Soundbooth, which is simply a re-branded Windows application.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Personally, I would like to see my software base grow. If people decide to explicitly exclude me, that doesn't make me happy. I don't want developers to go, "Hey, he's using PowerPC. PowerPC is dead. Screw him." I think many people feel the same way I do. This is why I guessed that you were in a situation where a down-with-PPC mindset wouldn't cause you trouble.

Oh c'mon. I wouldn't say PowerPC is dead, but it's on it's last legs. Apple warned you over a year ago that PowerPC was on the way out. Then they pulled the plug this year on their PowerPC line.

Next year the next the next step towards the end of PowerPC software is coming, Mac OS 10.5. Mac OS 10.5 supports native 64 bit applications on both PowerPC and Intel (so you can't say Apple doesn't care about the PowerPC, they did add 64 bit PowerPC support for Applications). How do you make an application which runs in 64 bit and 32 bit you ask? You create four builds. One for Intel 32, one for PowerPC 32, one for Intel 64, and one for PowerPC 64. These are quad Universal binaries we're talking about. Binaries are going to be 4x the size they were in PowerPC only days. And there are going to be four builds to maintain and test.

Now 64 bit isn't going to be popular off the bat. But I think 64 builds will become common pretty quickly. And when they do become common, developers might grudgingly continue to support PowerPC, but they'll be very eager to dump the PowerPC builds to go back to only building their program twice, one for Intel32 and one for Intel64. (Honestly I'm not sure why Apple bothered with Intel32 Macs but that's another topic...)

I'm not sure were you got the idea that developers would just continue adding supporting for new architectures without dumping the old ones, but a "long time" in computer time is usually about 4 years. And I think it's reasonable to think that within 4 years Intel only applications will be very common. But there is a trend in moving towards Intel only builds, and we're going to see it start with the Windows ports first, and then by the end it will reach existing Macintosh ports and Macintosh only apps. Soundbooth is just the start of the trend. This has nothing to do with developers not wanting to support the Mac, if anything it shows Adobe's commitment to Mac OS X when they are doing a Mac OS X port for users who they could just tell to run Soundbooth under Windows.

If you don't care about Soundbooth don't whine about it not coming to PowerPC. If you do care, buy a Mini when it comes out to run it. It would be very foolish for pro users not to have an Intel machine on hand.

[Velocity211]

I just hope Adobe doesn't make CS3 intel only, or else I would be really pissed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Velocity211 

I just hope Adobe doesn't make CS3 intel only, or else I would be really pissed.

They won't. Photoshop falls into the category of "already ported to PowerPC". It'll be one of the last to be Intel only.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Now 64 bit isn't going to be popular off the bat. But I think 64 builds will become common pretty quickly.

Mr. Big Developer should realize that most applications do not benefit much at all from being 64-bit. And those applications that do would probably require a G5, so there'd be no 32-bit PPC build necessary.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Mr. Big Developer should realize that most applications do not benefit much at all from being 64-bit. And those applications that do would probably require a G5, so there'd be no 32-bit PPC build necessary.

Ahhhh. I see. You have no problem with leaving the 32 bit PowerPC's behind. Lemme guess. You're a G5 owner.

No, I'm aware that applications themselves probably don't benefit from 64 bit compatibility. But here is the thing. Cocoa is a very high level API. While your code may not be faster under 64 bit, it's likely you will be linking to portions of Cocoa which have advantages in being 64 bit, so you're going to want to build a 64 bit version of your app to link against the 64 bit versions of Cocoa's APIs. Building something that uses Core Animation? 64 bit is useful. Core Data? 64 bit is useful. Core Image? 64 bit is useful. Chances are a lot of applications are going to be touching something in the guts of OS X which could run faster as 64 bit.

But note I said 64 bit wouldn't be a priority right away. For exactly the reason you've noted, 64 bit's biggest benefits come first in the biggest, most intensive, memory gobbling programs. That said, I've heard mumblings about 64 bit builds from some very surprising places where you would least expect it would be needed.

I'd talk more about 64 bit programs under OS X, but there isn't much more I can say that's publicly available. The movement to 64 bit is not going to be huge at Leopards launch, but to think that programs that "don't need" 64 bit are just going to stay 32 bit forever is silly. Apple could even start adding 64 bit only API's eventually that would required 32 bit programs to move over.

For a general performance overview of speed gains on 64 bit platforms, here's a good link:
AMD Athlon64 PCSTATS Review - 64-bit Benchmarks: nvidia, mini-gzip, DivX

The programs aren't curing cancer, but you can see where 64 bit code is advantageous.

Mostly I was pointing out 64 bit as an example of Apple adding on a bunch of other platforms for our programs to support, which means the idea that developers are going to support whatever platforms XCode can compile to more absurd.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ahhhh. I see. You have no problem with leaving the 32 bit PowerPC's behind. Lemme guess. You're a G5 owner.

No, I definitely have a problem with it. You just made a point that I refuted, that's all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Oh c'mon. I wouldn't say PowerPC is dead, but it's on it's last legs. Apple warned you over a year ago that PowerPC was on the way out.

Oh, come on. That is not at all what they said. Apple said they were going to stop putting PowerPC in new machines, not tell everybody who owns one to shove it up their ass.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not sure were you got the idea that developers would just continue adding supporting for new architectures without dumping the old ones, but a "long time" in computer time is usually about 4 years.

And hey, two months is close enough to that.

Also, I got the idea from the fact that — for a competent developer, at least — it's just not that hard to do. See John Gruber's article linked earlier for a nice testimonial from a competent developer. Perhaps I overestimated the development community in general.

Originally Posted by goMac 

And I think it's reasonable to think that within 4 years Intel only applications will be very common.

So…we agree then, but you think this is a good thing because it doesn't hurt you and you like to see other people be made unhappy?

Originally Posted by goMac 

If you don't care about Soundbooth don't whine about it not coming to PowerPC.

Funny, just a second ago this was "just the start of a trend." Now all of a sudden it isn't worth discussing?

[OwlBoy]

Apple already appears to be doing this them self with new OpenGL features only on Intel Macs even though it is quite doable on PPC ones too (and should have been done years ago)

MT OpenGL

-Owl

[bloodline]

Whinge whinge whine... If your PPC Mac suits your needs then enjoy it with the software you've already got... if you want to run new apps that need more power, buy a new Mac... And guess what...! Go on, have a guess... No clues have a guess... I knew you wouldn't get it... Ok, the new MORE POWERFUL Mac will have an intel dual core processor... Bosh! all your old apps will run and your new ones will run too! Spooky isn't it?

In the computer industry, if you make hardware, you only need need to make sure the Hardware and OS is backwards compatible, you'd go out of business in a month if users never needed to buy a new machine. What is happening now is nothing new, new software wll always require new hardware!

I know for a fact that anyone here who will actually buy Sound Booth, either already had an intel based Mac (Musicans have been crying out for more powerfull Macs for years) or will will have one by next year.

Lets not forget that the Mac user base is now growing faster than at any point in it's history... this time next year well over 50-60% of all Macs in common use will be intel based.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by bloodline 

if you want to run new apps that need more power, buy a new Mac...

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.

Originally Posted by bloodline 

Ok, the new MORE POWERFUL Mac will have an intel dual core processor... Bosh! all your old apps will run and your new ones will run too! Spooky isn't it?

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."

Originally Posted by bloodline 

I know for a fact that anyone here who will actually buy Sound Booth, either already had an intel based Mac (Musicans have been crying out for more powerfull Macs for years) or will will have one by next year.

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.

Originally Posted by bloodline 

Lets not forget that the Mac user base is now growing faster than at any point in it's history... this time next year well over 50-60% of all Macs in common use will be intel based.

And 90% of all computers will be Windows-based. Do you really believe developers should ignore the minority?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, come on. That is not at all what they said. Apple said they were going to stop putting PowerPC in new machines, not tell everybody who owns one to shove it up their ass.

Universal Binaries are part of the transition to Intel Macs. The keyword is transition. Programs will transition to being Intel only also. Universal Binaries are not always and forever. They are to get us through having multiple platforms on the Mac. Just as always, the newest stuff will require he newest machines, and those newest machines will be Intel Macs. This is the way technology has worked since the dawn of time. Universal Binaries are not here, however, there so that we can keep compiling for both platforms for the next 10 years so that when Steve Jobs decides to switch back to PowerPC in ten years we'll all be ok.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Also, I got the idea from the fact that — for a competent developer, at least — it's just not that hard to do. See John Gruber's article linked earlier for a nice testimonial from a competent developer. Perhaps I overestimated the development community in general.

I like reading Daring Fireball and I respect Gruber. Gruber, if you read, noted that Soundbooth seems to contain SSE code which would not easy to port over to PowerPC. He also oversimplifies C code compiling anywhere, probably for his non-technical readers. You can compile your C code on both platforms just fine, but if you start touching files, you need to make not only your C code endian safe, but your file format endian safe. In fact, Gruber mention's this:

"Another low-level problem is that of endianness. Read the Wikipedia entry for details, but a nutshell description will suit us just fine. Some processor architectures are big-endian, including the PowerPC and Motorola 68000 families. Others are little-endian, most notably the Intel x86 family. The difference is the order in which bytes are arranged in a multi-byte sequence; on a big-endian system bytes are ordered from most to least significant; on a little-endian system, they’re ordered from least to most significant. Wikipedia uses the analogy of the difference between left-to-right languages like English and right-to-left languages like Hebrew — neither is more efficient than the other, it’s just an arbitrary decision.

But dealing with endianness-related issues is tricky — unlike English and Hebrew, which are easily identified at a glance, bytes are just sequences of ones and zeroes. You can’t just look at a chunk of bytes and know their endianness. In some ways it’s more like telling the difference between ambiguous date formats — “1/2/2006” means 2 January 2006 in the U.S., but means 1 February 2006 in Europe. You can’t tell what the intent is just by looking at “1/2/2006”."

Gruber is not really saying Universal Binaries are easy to make, or they're a one click job. I think the one thing he does overlook is strategies for creating Universal Binaries are really only good if you're building a Mac only application. If you're porting from Windows you can't make use of any of Apple's API's to help you abstract endianness and other issues (well you could, but then you have to fork your code anyway...)

I think you're taking what you want to hear from the Gruber article, when in reality, it's pretty even handed.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So…we agree then, but you think this is a good thing because it doesn't hurt you and you like to see other people be made unhappy?

Here is the way I see it. At WWDC 2005 I was told Apple was moving to Intel. You knew the exact same thing I did. I took that as a sign that "gee, maybe if I want to get hardware with long term potential, I should not buy a PowerPC machine" and proceeded to not buy a G5 like I was planning on doing. I'm not sure what got lost in communication where you thought that Apple was going to support PowerPC forever and ever, while I was at the exact same keynote you probably watched, and it came off different to me, but it was pretty clear to me Apple was not going to support both platforms equally after the hardware transition finished.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Funny, just a second ago this was "just the start of a trend." Now all of a sudden it isn't worth discussing?

Sure, but it's just the start of the trend. Most PowerPC apps still have a good few years at the least left on PowerPC versions. If you were planning on having your G5 in a position where you could run everything that was released 4 years after you bought it... well... that's just not plausible on any computer.

What I'm saying is, Soundbooth is the start of a trend, and it's your signal, in case you didn't get it before, you are going to have to migrate to Intel hardware eventually.

[goMac]

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.

I'm sure the PowerPC can do it, but as Gruber said, it's a matter of marketing. That small group of machines, the PowerPC's that are faster than the minimum requirements, is not large enough to justify the PowerPC port of soundbooth.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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.

I hardly think Adobe users have been forced to buy the last G5's. Instead of buying a G5, I simply run Adobe stuff on last computer, which is a PowerPC, and run everything else on my current computer, which is an Intel.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And 90% of all computers will be Windows-based. Do you really believe developers should ignore the minority?

If Adobe believed there would be money to be made off of a PowerPC version they would probably do it. Adobe is not a charity, they're not going to code a PowerPC version for the fun of it. That said, they're not going to pass up a chance to make a buck either.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Universal Binaries are part of the transition to Intel Macs.

Universal Binaries were not sold as a transitional tool. They were sold as a way for developers to easily support Macs and Mactels for years to come. Not ten years, necessarily, but a number of years. Of course everyone realizes that Macs will not be supported indefinitely, but seeing the signs of abandonment from Adobe after a year and a half definitely contravenes the promise of Universal Binaries.

I'm not sure what got lost in communication where you thought that Apple was going to support PowerPC forever and ever, while I was at the exact same keynote you probably watched, and it came off different to me, but it was pretty clear to me Apple was not going to support both platforms equally after the hardware transition finished.

No one expected Macs to be treated equally. But if Universal Binaries are as difficult to maintain as you have claimed, then Jobs was a filthy liar, and Adobe is merely an accomplice to Apple's crime.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No one expected Macs to be treated equally. But if Universal Binaries are as difficult to maintain as you have claimed, then Jobs was a filthy liar, and Adobe is merely an accomplice to Apple's crime.

Geez..."filthy liar?" "Crime?" Overdramatic, much?

Universal Binaries are relatively easy - in some cases. In others, they might not be. I don't know why you think that all apps are 100% equally brain-dead simple to make into UBs, but that's not the case, and that doesn't make Jobs a "filthy liar." There will always be exceptions to the rule.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spirit_VW 

Geez..."filthy liar?" "Crime?" Overdramatic, much?

Universal Binaries are relatively easy - in some cases. In others, they might not be. I don't know why you think that all apps are 100% equally brain-dead simple to make into UBs, but that's not the case, and that doesn't make Jobs a "filthy liar." There will always be exceptions to the rule.

Exactly. Take a Mac only, Cocoa app, and it's going to be easy. A Windows port, written in a lower level language, is not going to be so easy.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Universal Binaries were not sold as a transitional tool. They were sold as a way for developers to easily support Macs and Mactels for years to come. Not ten years, necessarily, but a number of years. Of course everyone realizes that Macs will not be supported indefinitely, but seeing the signs of abandonment from Adobe after a year and a half definitely contravenes the promise of Universal Binaries.

As I said, if Adobe thought the market of PowerPC users was big enough to do a port for, they'd do the port. You're talking about a very small segment of the market. I can't imagine there are many audio pro users staying on PowerPC because most of those applications have already become Universal. You're talking about Adobe Photoshop users who are staying on the PowerPC who are also doing audio work.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No one expected Macs to be treated equally. But if Universal Binaries are as difficult to maintain as you have claimed, then Jobs was a filthy liar, and Adobe is merely an accomplice to Apple's crime.

(There's supposed to be an image below, I can't see it here at work, but I think it's there.)



Oh jobs, you dirty dirty liar.

(Note that his slide doesn't even take into account cases where you have processor specific code like Soundbooth does, but it does show the more low level your code is, the greater the port time is).