Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Photoshop CS4 to be 64-bit on Windows Only

Photoshop CS4 to be 64-bit on Windows Only (Page 2)
Thread Tools
stew
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The demise of Carbon was clear] from the start, just the exact point in time was not.
And that's why the (still current) developer documentation for HIToobox says this?
It’s the Future

Apple is committed to the HIViews, Carbon events, and nib files for Carbon implementations of the user interface. All new controls and other features will be based on HIView. If you want your application to take advantage of the latest features, you need to adopt the modern HIToolbox.
If Carbon was a dead-end anyway, why did Apple go through the trouble of adding features to it during 10.0 - 10.5, ported it to Intel and shipped betas of a 64bit version?


Stink different.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by stew View Post
If Carbon was a dead-end anyway, why did Apple go through the trouble of adding features to it during 10.0 - 10.5, ported it to Intel and shipped betas of a 64bit version?
You might have trouble understanding the message, but here it is again:

NO 64 BIT VERSION OF CARBON FROM APPLE !!!!1!1!11oneoneeleventy

It doesn't matter what they did in the past; Apple has changed its mind, that's it. End of discussion.

-t
     
stew
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 10:31 PM
 
Obviously. And those who didn't learn it from the 3GHz G5 hopefully learn it this time: ignore anything Apple announces. Wait until it ships (or not).


Stink different.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thinine View Post
Your response doesn't have anything to do with what I was responding to.
Yeah it did, your use of the word "bullied," which was fairly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
What part of Charles' post was syllogistic? (I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just didn't notice any syllogisms and I'm curious.)
He just likes to hear himself say multi-syllabic words.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Apr 7, 2008 at 11:28 PM. )

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:11 AM
 
Who cares...Adobe is dead.

After making the client pay exorbitant prices for paltry upgrades of their flagship (read flagshit) app, I'm glad swept the rug from underneath this lousy company. At least now Apple is making them actually WORK for their stupidity...sure, clients will still be forced to pay for the 64-bit version like they were forced to pay for the x86 Mac version or the Carbon port...but nothing beats the satisfaction of seeing this dysfunctional company rewrite their System 6 legacy piece of **** into a somewhat more modern app or fold.

Had Adobe clued in on the warning 10 years ago, it could have saved years of work porting to Cocoa early instead of Carbon, then work in Intel support, then rewriting for 64-bit (if they ever rewrite PS).
( Last edited by Chuckit; Apr 8, 2008 at 12:24 AM. Reason: language)
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:18 AM
 
^ Maybe if they didn't have to rewrite their whole app every release, they'd be able to make the upgrades less "paltry" in terms of actual features.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
^ Maybe if they didn't have to rewrite their whole app every release, they'd be able to make the upgrades less "paltry" in terms of actual features.
Or maaaaybe if they had started rewriting their whole app 10 years ago, they wouldn't need to 'rewrite' for Intel support or 64-bit support and actually concentrate on actual features.

Did they think Apple would provide a System 6 compatibility layer across all future processor and OS advancements? Sure, this is a huge hyperbole of a statement but think about it...

Frankly, I don't understand why Photoshop is "so huge". The only reason why it's "xbox huge lol" is because everything is self-contained...because they refuse to use OS frameworks. Sure, the explanation is logic: these frameworks didn't exist during System 6-9 days so every feature had to be written from scratch...then the Windows port had to match with the Mac version so using OS specific frameworks was out of the question apparently.

But when I see small apps like Pixelmator achieve 50% of Photoshop CS3's capabilities in version 1.0 and when I learn that it's the work of two people, I sit down and marvel at Adobe's inefficiency. Truly, Adobe is the definition of inefficiency.
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Apr 8, 2008 at 12:38 AM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Or maaaaybe if they had started rewriting their whole app 10 years ago, they wouldn't need to 'rewrite' for Intel support or 64-bit support and actually concentrate on actual features.
Maybe rewriting one of the largest desktop apps on the planet is a nontrivial undertaking and there wasn't any pressing need for them to completely rewrite (and introduce countless new bugs into) a more or less stable foundation?

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Did they think Apple would provide a System 6 compatibility layer across all future processor and OS advancements?
Probably not. I don't think Apple's provided a System 6 compatibility layer for quite some time.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
^ Maybe if they didn't have to rewrite their whole app every release, they'd be able to make the upgrades less "paltry" in terms of actual features.
As far as I can recall at the moment, the only things that have really mandated a substantial rewrite to otherwise perfectly good code are the requirement of Carbon and now Cocoa. That's hardly every release.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 03:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Or maaaaybe if they had started rewriting their whole app 10 years ago, they wouldn't need to 'rewrite' for Intel support or 64-bit support and actually concentrate on actual features.

Did they think Apple would provide a System 6 compatibility layer across all future processor and OS advancements? Sure, this is a huge hyperbole of a statement but think about it...
Carbon wasn't a compatibility layer. It was a full-fledged API, upon which Cocoa was originally going to be rebuilt. Why would Adobe have any reason to believe that Carbon was going away? Apple said it was the future.

You're also forgetting that the reason Carbon was made was because Adobe and others didn't want to have to rewrite their apps in Cocoa, because such an undertaking would be infeasibly large. Thing is, doing such a thing isn't any easier in 2008 than it was in 1998...

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Maybe rewriting one of the largest desktop apps on the planet is a nontrivial undertaking and there wasn't any pressing need for them to completely rewrite (and introduce countless new bugs into) a more or less stable foundation?
He probably thinks they just need to click on a check box somewhere.

As far as I can recall at the moment, the only things that have really mandated a substantial rewrite to otherwise perfectly good code are the requirement of Carbon and now Cocoa. That's hardly every release.
Don't forget about the need to move the whole project over to Xcode. Granted, that's not a complete rewrite, but was still a huge problem for a project that large. And then of course you have numerous endian issues to sort out, which is always loads of fun.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 10:44 AM
 
Adobe has a history of being behind the times when it comes to OS X software. Adobe is a big company with many developers. Apple has successfully ported many of their apps from Carbon to Cocoa in a very fast amount of time. Apple has also coded many apps from scratch on a Cocoa base. If Adobe had really wanted to, there is no reason why they should not be capable of the same.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:23 AM
 
How many Apple apps have gone from Carbon to Cocoa?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:27 AM
 
Even Quark uses Cocoa in its new applications and for (at least some) new features in Xpress. Future versions of Quark will probably use a combination of Mono and Cocoa.

I don't think complete resistance to adopting new technology because `It's hard' is really an excuse if Adobe wants to survive.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:34 AM
 
There's a pretty big difference between using Cocoa in a new, small application and being required to rewrite a large application for Cocoa. It's like the difference between installing a certain brand of pipes when a house is built and tearing down the house to install that brand of pipes. Nobody cares what brand the pipes are if they end up working the same, so it's all just a lot of expensive work just to get back to where you were to begin with.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
How many Apple apps have gone from Carbon to Cocoa?
At least DVD Studio Pro, iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD. Aperture has been written in Cocoa as well. Since I don't use DVD Studio Pro, I'm not sure whether its complexity is really comparable to Final Cut.

However, Apple has (by its own admission) rewritten quite a few other large apps in Carbon, among them the Finder. I don't think that's any less of an undertaking. Oh, someone in the movie software industry told me that Shake will be replaced, too, by something completely new (the signs point in that direction, too). Not sure if it's Cocoa, but it's a complete rewrite.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Apr 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:37 AM
 
Wow, good memory. I'd completely forgotten that iPhoto 1 was Carbon.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
There's a pretty big difference between using Cocoa in a new, small application and being required to rewrite a large application for Cocoa. It's like the difference between installing a certain brand of pipes when a house is built and tearing down the house to install that brand of pipes. Nobody cares what brand the pipes are if they end up working the same, so it's all just a lot of expensive work just to get back to where you were to begin with.
That's right. But on the other hand, you can't keep the same plumbing indefinitely.
Quark has decided to go with Mono (Windows)/Mono + Cocoa (OS X). I'm sure it'll be a smooth transition (i. e. they will replace pipe-by-pipe), but eventually they will have replaced all of the pipes that needed replacement. I don't have the impression Adobe is doing the same thing.
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Wow, good memory. I'd completely forgotten that iPhoto 1 was Carbon.
iDVD 1 ran on OS 9 … long, long time ago, of course
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Apple, Inc. may not need Adobe and M$, but the Mac platform would be substantially affected if they pulled their support. Apple really should be done with it and buy Adobe already, a move I've been advocating for years.
How realistic is that? What's Abobe's networth? I know Apple's ridiculously liquid and has been doing very well, but Adobe's not easy pickings, is it?

Hey, wouldn't it be funny to hear Microsoft cry foul about Apple acquiring Adobe? That would tickle me.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Who cares...Adobe is dead.

After making the client pay exorbitant prices for paltry upgrades of their flagship (read flagshit) app, I'm glad swept the rug from underneath this lousy company. At least now Apple is making them actually WORK for their stupidity...sure, clients will still be forced to pay for the 64-bit version like they were forced to pay for the x86 Mac version or the Carbon port...but nothing beats the satisfaction of seeing this dysfunctional company rewrite their System 6 legacy piece of **** into a somewhat more modern app or fold.

Had Adobe clued in on the warning 10 years ago, it could have saved years of work porting to Cocoa early instead of Carbon, then work in Intel support, then rewriting for 64-bit (if they ever rewrite PS).
Dead?

Huh? I thought after acquiring Macromedia they pretty much cemented themselves as the cornerstone of graphics and web design? They're ubiquitous.

How can they be dead? But then, they also need to realize where Apple is now. Apple's not the pathetic, barely-hanging-on also-ran that they were when Adobe was a key platform for their survival in the late 90's. Macs broke 20% market share last quarter. Adobe can't afford not to work with Apple...and Apple really shouldn't be looking not to work with Adobe. Aperture is a long, long way from competing with Photoshop.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:52 AM
 
Adobe's market cap is $20.7B. Apple could pay $10B in cash in $15B in stock and that would be a nice premium. It could be done.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Adobe's market cap is $20.7B. Apple could pay $10B in cash in $15B in stock and that would be a nice premium. It could be done.
Sounds like a steal. You should write Jobs a letter.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:03 PM
 
I don't think it's a good idea. Apple has both, the manpower and expertise to write a competitor app to Photoshop. But I doubt they'll do it anytime soon -- unless one of their ninjas has a crazy idea how to revolutionarily revamp the whole (single) image editing process.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Sounds like a steal. You should write Jobs a letter.
Thank you, I may just do that.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think it's a good idea. Apple has both, the manpower and expertise to write a competitor app to Photoshop.
Problem is that PS is pretty much THE application in the graphic world and who in their right mind would dump PS and buy a brand new, graphics program. Just because they can doesn't mean they should, or that it would be successful.

I think also there's something to be said to have a large group of software companies writing applications for the platform. If apple becomes the one and only source of applications for the macintosh, it will be in trouble.

Apple does need to have MS office and photoshop (and other apps) to be considered a serious alternative to a PC. If a consumer wants a computer and finds out that office is not available, they will bypass it. Simple as that.

On the carbon front, I really don't think apple is going to be killing it off, too much work has been invested in improving it over the years to only throw it away. I'm not sure why apple killed 64bit carbon but it may not be killing it off as much as delaying it.
     
stew
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Adobe's market cap is $20.7B. Apple could pay $10B in cash in $15B in stock and that would be a nice premium. It could be done.
Then what?
Photoshop 64bit wouldn't come any faster through that. You can't solve programming problems by throwing money at them.


Stink different.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:57 PM
 
It would certainly be faster with Apple's in-house programmers heading the effort. It would also end Adobe's neglect of the platform and favoritism toward Windows. More importantly, it would clinch the creative professional market completely in Apple's favor.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
At least DVD Studio Pro, iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD. Aperture has been written in Cocoa as well. Since I don't use DVD Studio Pro, I'm not sure whether its complexity is really comparable to Final Cut.
And I'm pretty sure that the code base for DVDSP + iMovie + iPhoto + iDVD + Aperture exceeds the code base for PS. Adobe is just a bit lazy. I believe the real reason is because PS still has a bunch of legacy code. However, Adobe does have the might to create a Cocoa PS.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 01:24 PM
 
One or two things I want to comment on your post here,

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Carbon wasn't a compatibility layer. It was a full-fledged API, upon which Cocoa was originally going to be rebuilt. Why would Adobe have any reason to believe that Carbon was going away? Apple said it was the future.
Let's say for argument's sake that Apple really claimed Carbon was the future, why would anyone take Apple at its word? Developers really believed that the two APIs were the future or that they'd merge somehow?

Perhaps that was the original plan or Apple really meant 'the immedieate future', but just didn't spell out the first part. Indeed Carbon is the future, but not the far future. It'll be fine for the next five years or maybe even more.

It'll always be fine for apps that don't have to be 64-bit and while the OS can run 32-bit apps. Nothing to panic about.

Adobe however has no excuse, because I would have told them it was a fool's errand to rely on Carbon for the distant future. Adobe, being the cumbersome mass of blob that it is, knew that Carbon was on its way out and probably, like I, suspected that the possibility was there that 64-bit memory addressing wouldn't be part of the API and Apple didn't seem to be making any progress merging Carbon and Cocoa. So, new apps from Adobe, such as Lightroom, are Cocoa apps.

Adobe didn't bother to rewrite Photoshop, though that would have been the most immediately needed rewrite. Reason being, it doesn't matter for Adobe. There is no competition and if Mac users wait one version and a few years for a proper app, well they'll just have to. What other app are they going to use in the meanwhile?

You're also forgetting that the reason Carbon was made was because Adobe and others didn't want to have to rewrite their apps in Cocoa, because such an undertaking would be infeasibly large. Thing is, doing such a thing isn't any easier in 2008 than it was in 1998...
That's quite the overstatement because now in 2008 Adobe has finally begun to rewrite Photoshop. They didn't want to but now that they have to, it will be done. Infeasable is not the adjective du jour. And Photoshop is even more bloated today than it was ten year ago.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by stew View Post
Then what?
Photoshop 64bit wouldn't come any faster through that. You can't solve programming problems by throwing money at them.
Setting aside how Apple would hypothetically acquire Adobe, I'd just like to answer the question above.

You're right PS wouldn't be converted to Cocoa much faster, however it would serve as damage control. Preventing this sort of heel-dragging from happening again.

More importantly - at least in my mind - I'd have a slight glimmer of hope that Apple could take the steaming pile of goo that is the bloatware package that oozes from Adobe every now and then, streamline it, innovate and knowing Apple kill the Windows version.

Oh my! Why would Apple want to kill such revenue???!!!... some may exclaim. Setting aside that this is policy at Apple, i.e. not to write anything for Windows except to gain marketshare for Apple hardware, not writing for Windows is the same policy because it works to gain market share for Apple hardware.

It's just that Adobe is a producer of such turds that I don't really think Apple can save any of it. I think the only real hope is for competitors to make something better and more innovative than that offered by Adobe today.

It's the bloat and corporate mentality that has been ruining Adobe apps since the late 90s. Adobe was an incredible company for its first 15-20 years.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
stew
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Let's say for argument's sake that Apple really claimed Carbon was the future, why would anyone take Apple at its word?
Apple claims it literally on this web page titled "Upgrading to the Mac OS X HIToolbox: It's the future".
You're right, we can't take Apple at it's word. That's why no one ported their apps to Cocoa or ProjectBuilder (the thing now known as Xcode) when OS X came out - who were we to assume that those didn't get killed (like Docklings, Cocoa/Java, AudioUnits v1)? You don't change the foundations of your application just because Apple says so. You change the foundations when you benefit from doing so. The 64bit situation is so far the first and only thing how Photoshop would benefit from being a Cocoa app and that's why there was no reason for Adobe to do anything about it until WWDC 07.


Stink different.
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Who cares...Adobe is dead.
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
It's just that Adobe is a producer of such turds that I don't really think Apple can save any of it. I think the only real hope is for competitors to make something better and more innovative than that offered by Adobe today.

It's the bloat and corporate mentality that has been ruining Adobe apps since the late 90s. Adobe was an incredible company for its first 15-20 years.
I'm no fanboy of adobe, but its not dead as horsepoo thinks and too many professionals would disagree that they've been producing turds. While I cannnot comment on adobe being a bloated corporation. They do have a very powerful suite of applications that are for the most part the standard application. If they were turds people would be avoiding them at all costs and thats just not the case.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stew View Post
Apple claims it literally on this web page titled "Upgrading to the Mac OS X HIToolbox: It's the future".
You're right, we can't take Apple at it's word. That's why no one ported their apps to Cocoa or ProjectBuilder (the thing now known as Xcode) when OS X came out - who were we to assume that those didn't get killed (like Docklings, Cocoa/Java, AudioUnits v1)? You don't change the foundations of your application just because Apple says so. You change the foundations when you benefit from doing so. The 64bit situation is so far the first and only thing how Photoshop would benefit from being a Cocoa app and that's why there was no reason for Adobe to do anything about it until WWDC 07.
Look at what Apple does, not what Apple says. Adobe refused to change their foundations because Apple said so in 1998. Now they are.

New development is made in Cocoa at Adobe, not Carbon. They knew where Apple was heading, else they'd have continued to use the 'future proof' Carbon.

It's also reflected in just about all other developers. Everyone is moving to Cocoa.

It made sense to Adobe to drag their collective feet on Photoshop, they'll lose no money on this delay because you have no choice. There is no alternative to Photoshop. There will be a PS CS4 for the Mac, it just won't be 64-bit. People will buy it.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacosNerd View Post
While I cannnot comment on adobe being a bloated corporation. They do have a very powerful suite of applications that are for the most part the standard application. If they were turds people would be avoiding them at all costs and thats just not the case.
A turd can be an industry standard. Microsoft Windows/DOS is a fine example of such a thing, where not only were they the industry standard but also the only justifiable OS for over 90% of computer users - corporate and private.

There have always been better OSs out there, but that's not really relevant to market share or attraction for users.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 03:42 PM
 
What better image editing program is there than Photoshop — the Mac OS to Photoshop's DOS?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
What better image editing program is there than Photoshop — the Mac OS to Photoshop's DOS?
Why?
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
A turd can be an industry standard. Microsoft Windows/DOS is a fine example of such a thing, where not only were they the industry standard but also the only justifiable OS for over 90% of computer users - corporate and private.
Yes but there is no better photo editing software so the argument that adobe is producing turds is ludicrous. Every other application trying to compete with PS is playing catch up in terms of capabilities.

The argument that adobe is dead or that it is producing turds is more of an emotional statement rather then one based on facts.
     
stew
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 04:00 PM
 
The only 64bit version of an application comparable to Photoshop would be the Gimp running on Linux - the OS X versions I'm aware of are all 32bit only.

If Adobe is slacking, so is everyone else. Where are Apple's 64bit versions anyway?


Stink different.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacosNerd View Post
Yes but there is no better photo editing software so the argument that adobe is producing turds is ludicrous.
If there is only one choice, that choice can well be a complete turd. Again, I refer to Windows. Mac OS or other OSs were not a choice or were deemed arbitrarily not capable.

Likewise Photoshop is the only game in town and claiming that's proof of it's quality is quite absurd.

The argument that adobe is dead or that it is producing turds is more of an emotional statement rather then one based on facts.
Adobe is not dead. I'm sure they answer the phone, hire and fire, pay saleries, deliver products etc. I don't think it is up to debate whether Adobe is dead or not.

It is however producing turds, in my opinion, and has become less and less relevant because of it. Putting my experience aside with Adobe apps since the late 80s, it is clear by how marginalized Adobe products have become today.

Photoshop is the lone product worth mentioning, their last industry standard. Illustrator is not bad, but utterly irrelevant, InDesign couldn't kill Quark and Premiere is getting humiliated by FCP. Perhaps there is hope for Lightroom, maybe.

What is Adobe without Photoshop?
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stew View Post
The only 64bit version of an application comparable to Photoshop would be the Gimp running on Linux - the OS X versions I'm aware of are all 32bit only.

If Adobe is slacking, so is everyone else. Where are Apple's 64bit versions anyway?
Adobe isn't slacking, they're releasing 64-bit Photoshop for Windows soon. Gimp is by no fair means comparable to Photoshop.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Let's say for argument's sake that Apple really claimed Carbon was the future, why would anyone take Apple at its word? Developers really believed that the two APIs were the future or that they'd merge somehow?
Yes, there was a lot of talk going around about Cocoa being rebuilt on top of Carbon, which would have merged the two.

Perhaps that was the original plan or Apple really meant 'the immedieate future', but just didn't spell out the first part. Indeed Carbon is the future, but not the far future. It'll be fine for the next five years or maybe even more.

It'll always be fine for apps that don't have to be 64-bit and while the OS can run 32-bit apps. Nothing to panic about.

Adobe however has no excuse, because I would have told them it was a fool's errand to rely on Carbon for the distant future. Adobe, being the cumbersome mass of blob that it is, knew that Carbon was on its way out and probably, like I, suspected that the possibility was there that 64-bit memory addressing wouldn't be part of the API and Apple didn't seem to be making any progress merging Carbon and Cocoa.
No one at all thought that Carbon was on its way out back then - quite the opposite, actually. Back in the 10.0-10.2 days, Carbon seemed a lot safer for the long term than Cocoa did, as Apple's focus seemed to be on Carbon, and Cocoa was suffering from neglect. Cocoa was also a brand-new API to the Mac OS, untried, untested, and unknown by most anyone outside of the small ex-NeXT community. As a result, you had threads like that "How viable is Cocoa development?" thread I linked to earlier in the thread (here it is again, for your viewing pleasure), and generally no one wanted to touch Cocoa except for the small shareware developers. No one wanted to base a large application on a new framework that could easily get axed, especially when they were dealing with a company that had a history of introducing whiz-bang developer technologies like QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc, GameSprockets, etc. only to invariably kill them off, every time, whereas the trusty Mac OS Toolbox (now rechristened Carbon) just kept on going, and going, and going.

It would have been insane to rewrite Photoshop in Cocoa in 1998. Cocoa's future wasn't assured at all until Panther, where Apple finally started shifting gears and focusing more on Cocoa - and that could have been just because Cocoa apps proved to be popular with the users. If it hadn't, Cocoa may well have met the same fate as OpenDoc by now, and we'd be looking at this situation from the other angle.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stew View Post
Then what?
Photoshop 64bit wouldn't come any faster through that. You can't solve programming problems by throwing money at them.
Of course you can! What're you smoking, buddy.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 04:57 PM
 
By "Adobe is dead" I mean the company will crumble under its own weight. Holding on to legacy code will be the end of Adobe. Adobe's refusal to rewrite will only continue to make their code larger, more bloated, slower, and one day MS will begin to force large companies to rewrite their apps with modern using frameworks...starting perhaps with Windows 7 which might need a compatibility layer to allow current apps to run.

With the modern frameworks that exist today, tiny teams can create apps like Pixelmator and Acorn.

Sure, as version 1.x these two apps don't compare to PS version 11.0 (or whatever version they're on now), but, hey, version 1.0 suckaz...and these two apps is the work of a small team.

In 2 years from now, these two apps may have 80-90% of Photoshop's features. And they could easily become 64-bit apps.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Illustrator is not bad, but utterly irrelevant
To whom? People who don't do vector art?

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
InDesign couldn't kill Quark
Anything less than utter monopoly is failure? You must be joking. InDesign has made inroads on Quark faster than I've ever seen a market leader get toppled before. Quark may not be dead, but that's mainly thanks to inertia.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
and Premiere is getting humiliated by FCP.
This is the only assessment in this post that I think is accurate.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
To whom? People who don't do vector art?
To Adobe's relevance in the software industry.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Anything less than utter monopoly is failure? You must be joking. InDesign has made inroads on Quark faster than I've ever seen a market leader get toppled before. Quark may not be dead, but that's mainly thanks to inertia.
Ever since Adobe - at the hight of its relevancy and power - announced its Pagemaker derivative, it was proclaimed to be a 'Quark-killer' by Adobe.

I've seen a market leader being toppled far faster, when Microsoft killed Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer with their market-leading, industry-standard turd of an OS.

Even though Adobe bundled Indesign with Photoshop, they couldn't achieve the same effect. Not for the lack of trying. Indesign wouldn't have made a dent on XPress if it hadn't been bundled with Photoshop.. i reiterate: what is Adobe without Photoshop?

If you think Quark is dead, well let's just say that nobody ever got fired for buying Quark XPress.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
This is the only assessment in this post that I think is accurate.
Your approval on this matter is very important to me. Much abliged.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I've seen a market leader being toppled far faster, when Microsoft killed Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer with their market-leading, industry-standard turd of an OS.
Yeah, Adobe doesn't own an OS to bundle their software with, though, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
stew
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Of course you can! What're you smoking, buddy.
Source code. In fact, I ported a large application to OS X 64 bit, scheduled to ship soon, and I haven't encountered a single problem that money could have solved.
To port a large application, you need developers that understand the code they're porting - bringing in 3rd party Cocoa experts that don't have any experience with the app would make things only slower because you'd have the experienced developers spend months training the consultants.

(see also the mythical man-month - "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.")


Stink different.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Yeah, Adobe doesn't own an OS to bundle their software with, though, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.
I know you don't, but Adobe marketing did and I do. It's called Photoshop and is the unequivocal flagship of all Adobe apps. Why the straw-man argument?

Simply bundle Indesign with Photoshop in Creative Suite and you have your comparison.

The fact that you don't already see this, means you don't want to. Adobe certainly sees this.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 06:21 PM
 
I tried to use Gimp; really, really tried. It's horrible. I've had better luck with Kid Pix.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 06:23 PM
 
As long as the 64-bit version is a free upgrade to anyone who buys CS4 for OS X when it comes out, I don't see a huge problem.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
64stang06
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
As long as the 64-bit version is a free upgrade to anyone who buys CS4 for OS X when it comes out, I don't see a huge problem.
Unless they use the same accountants that Apple does
MacBook Pro 13" 2.8GHz Core i7/8GB RAM/750GB Hard Drive - Mac OS X 10.7.3
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2008, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I know you don't, but Adobe marketing did and I do. It's called Photoshop and is the unequivocal flagship of all Adobe apps. Why the straw-man argument?
Nice. First pointing out that no one predicted the "obvious" axing of Carbon's 64-bit support ahead of time is a syllogism, and now pointing out that bundling something with Photoshop isn't the same as bundling something with an OS is a straw-man argument.

Color me confused.

Simply bundle Indesign with Photoshop in Creative Suite and you have your comparison.
How is that equivalent to bundling something with an OS? Windows is used by 90-some percent of the computer-using population, and MS managed to get Apple to pre-install IE on their computers as well, so basically IE was preinstalled on pretty much every personal computer on earth, other than the tiny minority who were running Linux on the desktop in the 1990s. If you think putting Adobe CS is equivalent to that, you're nuts. Photoshop is an important app, but it doesn't even come close to having a 100% marketshare among personal computer users. And InDesign isn't even bundled with every copy of Photoshop - only the $1200 Creative Suite, which I certainly wouldn't buy if all I wanted was Photoshop, which is only $650 by itself, or perhaps even Photoshop Elements for $100.

And of course Quark/InDesign are marketed to a type of user who is far less likely to use something critical to their professional work just because it came with the computer for free anyway, and the people who need Quark/InDesign might not necessarily even be the same people who need Photoshop in the first place. Yes, InDesign has been making cross-roads into Quark's marketshare, but I don't think it's because of its being bundled in Adobe CS.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,