Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Mar 2006 16:18 UTC, submitted by mono
Apple "By now you have probably figured out that we aren't releasing Universal Binaries of our current application versions. If you haven't, all you need to know is pretty explicitly spelled out here [.pdf]. 'But, c'mon', I hear people saying, 'Steve said it was just a recompile!' Or, 'Back during the PowerPC transition, you guys released a patch!' Well, this time is different. And I really wish it weren't."
Order by: Score:
Just now?
by GrapeGraphics on Fri 24th Mar 2006 16:34 UTC
GrapeGraphics
Member since:
2005-07-07

...and so they NOW begin rewriting proper code?

I wonder if the previos code for PPC could've been optimized if it were rewritten as opposed to what they had done?

I wonder...

IMHO

Jb

Reply Score: 2

Obsolete Code
by llanitedave on Fri 24th Mar 2006 16:37 UTC
llanitedave
Member since:
2005-07-24

It implies to me that Photoshop is carrying a lot of baggage in old, obsolete, non-modular code.

That may be the main reason they haven't relased a Linux version.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Obsolete Code
by JustAnotherMacUser on Fri 24th Mar 2006 16:51 UTC in reply to "Obsolete Code"
JustAnotherMacUser Member since:
2006-01-08

Your right, they were just bloating and extorting all these years.

Tht's why I've stuck with PS 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Obsolete Code
by junior on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Obsolete Code"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

Not to sound like an Adobe fanboy, but if you think PS7 = PS CS2 minus bloat, you're deluding yourself. It has many REAL improvements.

And yes, I used to sound like you. Until I actually tried it

Edited 2006-03-24 20:02

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Obsolete Code
by mmebane on Sat 25th Mar 2006 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Obsolete Code"
mmebane Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed - Photoshop CS2 does have many useful things PS7 doesn't. However, the GUI is now somewhat laggy, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Obsolete Code
by GrapeGraphics on Fri 24th Mar 2006 17:01 UTC in reply to "Obsolete Code"
GrapeGraphics Member since:
2005-07-07

I really don't think that has anything to do with not developing a LInux version. Adobe probably feels that the people in the Linux community do not want to pay what Adobe charges for software. They probably percieve Linux users as people who only want free/open source software.

Software sold to Windows users make them the most cash, Mac sales are miniscule but they may be just realizing that the Mac development is key for WIDESPREAD acceptance through the users.

IMHO (of course)

Jb

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Obsolete Code
by Gr8Scott on Fri 24th Mar 2006 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Obsolete Code"
Gr8Scott Member since:
2005-10-25

As painful as some of your statements are I have to agree, particularly the part about Linux users looking to Free/Open Source software. IMHO, if your are a designer using Linux more than likely you are using “The Gimp http://gimp.org/” or some similar tools. As for sales, once again I agree, I love Macs but during this turbulent (readjustment) time at Apple, Adobe is in a strong enough position where they simply don't have to go along for the ride and can wait until things smooth over i.e. the transition with the new chips are nearing completion. Just my $0.02 :o)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Obsolete Code
by kadymae on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Obsolete Code"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

if your are a designer using Linux more than likely you are using “The Gimp http://gimp.org/” or some similar tools.

I have several friends who work professionally in graphic design.

Not a single one of them uses GIMP.

No CMYK support.

And when you're doing prolevel print work, that's a deal killer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Obsolete Code
by archiesteel on Fri 24th Mar 2006 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Obsolete Code"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Lots of graphic artists no longer do print work. An increasing amount of them do art that will only exist in electronic form, appearing in such mediums as TV, films and videogames.

For these artists, Gimp and/or Cinepaint are more than adequate tools.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Obsolete Code
by bytore on Sat 25th Mar 2006 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Obsolete Code"
bytore Member since:
2006-03-25

Lots of graphic artists no longer do print work. An increasing amount of them do art that will only exist in electronic form, appearing in such mediums as TV, films and videogames.

For these artists, Gimp and/or Cinepaint are more than adequate tools.


That's NOT true. I own a Graphic Design Studio and 50% of our work is for print. The same is true for all the other Studios in our area.

In order for someone to be a productive Graphic Designer one must be proficient in ALL fields of Graphic Design, including and not limited to Digital Media, Print Media, Industrial Design, Environmental Graphics, Video and Audio.

The major push in the Graphic Design Industry is for al Graphic Design Firms to migrate to the "Multi-disciplinary Design Firm".

The majority of my clients want me to design everything from their logo, marketing collateral, interior office, video, audio (commercial jingles), intranet UI, extranet UI, T-shirts, brochures, yellow page ad, billboards, and their web presence.

Edited 2006-03-25 06:43

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Obsolete Code
by kadymae on Sat 25th Mar 2006 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Obsolete Code"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Lots of graphic artists no longer do print work. An increasing amount of them do art that will only exist in electronic form, appearing in such mediums as TV, films and videogames.

This is true.

But press is still the preeminent medium, and as soon as somebody grabs some of their stills for publication on paper, guess what?

It's got to go through something with CMYK support.

I've got friends going through Art School, too. GIMP is not used/taught because it's not likely to be a tool they use on the job.

However, I will say that as soon as CMYK support is coded into GIMP (despite its kludgy interface) it will grow by leaps and bounds .

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Obsolete Code
by junior on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Obsolete Code"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

"Software sold to Windows users make them the most cash, Mac sales are miniscule ..."

Dude, Apple sales contribute about 25% to Adobes total revenue.

For a company that has 3% (or whatever) marketshare, that's not minuscule, it's astronomical.

Edited 2006-03-24 20:04

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Obsolete Code
by Beryllium on Sat 25th Mar 2006 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Obsolete Code"
Beryllium Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, if they had a Linux-based Adobe Acrobat, my company would buy several copies. They don't seem to, and to date Adobe Reader for Linux has merely served as a partially-functional annoyance.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Obsolete Code
by EmmEff on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:00 UTC in reply to "Obsolete Code"
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

Sounds like Adobe has a serious problem with the architecture of their products and might be in need of some serious configuration management.

I'm not quite sure why their build system does not support building from the command-line. Why he's blaming Xcode for anything is beyond me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Obsolete Code
by stew on Fri 24th Mar 2006 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Obsolete Code"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

'm not quite sure why their build system does not support building from the command-line.

Who tells you it doesn't? All three IDEs in question (Xcode, Visual Studio, CodeWarrior) support building from the command line.

Edited 2006-03-24 22:53

Reply Score: 2

RE: Obsolete Code
by G. W. on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "Obsolete Code"
G. W. Member since:
2006-03-17

> It implies to me that Photoshop is carrying a lot of
> baggage in old, obsolete, non-modular code.

Ah, interesting. You have never seen the code and now you can conclude that it is "carrying a lot of baggage in old, obsolete, non-modular code". Linux user? Seems like that - Linux users can always make conclusions on code they've never seen. Rule #2: If it's not available for Linux, it's old, obsolete and non-modular.

How many projects of this dimension and complexity have you been working on recently? Using an IDE? I mean, really using it - and then migrating to another one that is completely different and not even matured to the same degree as the previous one? Did you actually read the weblog entry at all?

> That may be the main reason they haven't relased a
> Linux version.

No. The main reason they haven't released a Linux version is that Linux is not a platform used by people working with software like Photoshop. It's a platform for people making conclusions like the one quoted above. The platforms for people doing graphics stuff that requires Photoshop-like software are Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.

Adobe's software can be ported to Linux like every other software can be. Look at Acrobat Reader, it was ported. And why wasn't the full Acrobat product ported? Not because it's so different, it's actually the same code base, but because most Linux users don't pay for software. And those who would are too few.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Obsolete Code
by archiesteel on Fri 24th Mar 2006 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Obsolete Code"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

No. The main reason they haven't released a Linux version is that Linux is not a platform used by people working with software like Photoshop.

Bullcrap. Why do you think Codeweavers did extra work to get Photoshop working with Crossover Office? Because corporate clients (Disney, in fact) asked them to.

It's a platform for people making conclusions like the one quoted above.

It's a platform for development, production work and a whole lot more. Please stop pushing your agenda in such an arrogant manner. Thanks.

The platforms for people doing graphics stuff that requires Photoshop-like software are Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.

Photoshop runs on Linux with Crossover, and it is used professionally. Cinepaint runs on Linux, and it is used professionally. High-end compositors/SFX apps such as Smoke run on Linux natively and are used professionally.

Not because it's so different, it's actually the same code base, but because most Linux users don't pay for software. And those who would are too few.

Please provide some sources to back up this claim. Meanhwile, I'll make the claim that, since piracy is so rampant in the Windows world, it's a good indication tht Windows users as a rule don't pay for software.

Reply Score: 5

If I had a nickel...
by pauls101 on Fri 24th Mar 2006 17:32 UTC
pauls101
Member since:
2005-07-07

for every time I was flamed or called a troll for saying exactly what this guy just said!

Since Rosetta can't mix instruction types in a single program, all programs AND all addons (plugins!) must be recompiled. If Adobe could put out a working x86 Photoshop now, it would be useless to a lot of people with 3rd party or in-house plugins. Also, most commercial Mac apps are all or mostly Carbon based, making "just a recompile" a whole lot harder.

My original comment (and it doesn't just apply to Adobe) was that the Mac-x86 market is going to be small for a few years: Apple can't make or sell enough millions of computers overnight to change that, no matter how good they are. And for a product like Photoshop, Adobe would never sell enough copies to cover even their QA costs (much less development and new-platform support) unless there are a LOT of computers out there to use it. Much better to work slowly and hope to switch completely (dump PPC) in a few years.

Enjoy your new MacTels, by all account they're good machines. I'll buy one when MS updates VPC to run Windows at usable speeds on them (unfortunately, I've used the Windows version of Photoshop, and it sucks rocks compared to the Mac version. No answer there.) Until then, my current Mac's are running just fine.

Reply Score: 4

quoted for truth
by stew on Fri 24th Mar 2006 17:32 UTC
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

From the article:

"... the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well."

That is so *ing true. Xcode is neat for a small Cocoa app, but it really isn't up for large scale C++ projects with hundreds of classes and files.

Reply Score: 4

RE: quoted for truth
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 24th Mar 2006 17:39 UTC in reply to "quoted for truth"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

like mathmatica you mean?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: quoted for truth
by stew on Fri 24th Mar 2006 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE: quoted for truth"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

If it's so easy, where then Apple's own Shake?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: quoted for truth
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 24th Mar 2006 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: quoted for truth"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

well... Shake is used on their Power macs more than their powerbooks, so, they are waiting perhaps?

I'm just point out that your argument is not valid due to Mathmatica being ported over to UB easily.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: quoted for truth
by stew on Fri 24th Mar 2006 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: quoted for truth"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

...and we have data that we can verify regarding the code size of Mathematcia and Photoshop? Or is it just rampant speculation?

I have ported two major Mac apps to MachO and Intel, and my experience with Xcode is that it's nowhere nearly as good at handling large projects as VS and CW are. What are your experiences?

Reply Score: 1

Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

A: "To run Photoshop natively" ;)

In all seriousness: it seems Apple indirectly bit themselves in the ass, when they torpedoed Metrowerks by not including them in any transition-plans.

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. Metrowerks has been right alongside everything Apple from day one. A lot of developers use their tools.

Reply Score: 1

ihaveabuginmyeye Member since:
2005-11-30

Unforunately CodeWarrior is owned by Freescale formerly Motorola, so I don't think that they were to keen on the processor switch. Sure there was a time when CodeWarrior could generate ppc and x86 code, but they sold off the x86 stuff a while ago. Apple has been telling developers to switch to xcode for years.

Reply Score: 1

Mathematica may not be a good example
by javiercero1 on Fri 24th Mar 2006 18:45 UTC
javiercero1
Member since:
2005-11-10

Mathematica may be the opposite of what Photoshop is: it is extremely portable. There have been mathematica versions for every major unix platform and windows, and mathematica was ported to NexStep long ago... so there is no carbon leftover which makes it full Cocoa (nee OpenStep). Pure cocoa apps are extremely easy to move over since in that case it is just a simple recompile. However I am afraid that Photoshop has way too Mac baggage to not be that easy to port or move to a full cocoa release.

Reply Score: 4

Adobe legacy code...
by Tuishimi on Fri 24th Mar 2006 18:53 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to wonder how much warning Apple gave them. Well, actually he says in his replies that it wasn't enough to get it started in a development cycle.

But they've had the 68K code for YEARS now and with each release, they probably should have looked at eliminating a chunk of that. Why keep putting it off? They knew that eventually it would have to be done, probably even with the PPC architecture (hey, innovation can sometimes nip compatibility in the bud).

Well, now they are stuck and they are making it out to be more of Apple's fault than their own. That's balogna. And that crap about not enough time in the development cycle... feh. We NEVER have enough time for ANY of our projects, yet we tackle them and get them done anyway. (all it took was some gray hair, fingernail biting and some lost weekends).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Adobe legacy code...
by someone on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:03 UTC in reply to "Adobe legacy code..."
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

But they've had the 68K code for YEARS now and with each release, they probably should have looked at eliminating a chunk of that. Why keep putting it off? They knew that eventually it would have to be done, probably even with the PPC architecture (hey, innovation can sometimes nip compatibility in the bud).

Because there is no reason. Most of the 68k code do not generate bottlenecks and they wouldn't cause any performance problems. In fact, only 10% of a program's code are responsible for performance problems. The Java Hotspot JIT compiler use this to its advantage by only compiling the "hotspots".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Adobe legacy code...
by Tuishimi on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Adobe legacy code..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a reason and I stated it it in my post.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Adobe legacy code...
by edwdig on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:36 UTC in reply to "Adobe legacy code..."
edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

But they've had the 68K code for YEARS now and with each release, they probably should have looked at eliminating a chunk of that. Why keep putting it off? They knew that eventually it would have to be done, probably even with the PPC architecture (hey, innovation can sometimes nip compatibility in the bud).

There is no 68K code still in Photoshop. You misunderstood what he said. He said that during the 68K to PPC transition, Apple provided hooks for 68K code to call PPC code. Photoshop's design has most of the CPU intense code isolated into one plugin, specifically to make it easier to optimize the code for different CPUs. Adobe was able to optimize that plugin for PPC, which meant only a small amount of code needing to be tested but resulted in a giant speed boost for the users.

The next release of Photoshop was entirely PPC native (or more likely, contained both 68K and PPC code paths for the entire program).

During this transition, there is no way for PPC code to call x86 code. It's an all or nothing transition this time. Adobe could probably port the code fairly quickly, however, they'd have to run it through full Quality Assurance testing. By the time they finished that, they would probably be really close to the release of the next version of Photoshop. So, it just makes more sense to just wait for the next version.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Adobe legacy code...
by Tuishimi on Fri 24th Mar 2006 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Adobe legacy code..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe I did misunderstand. I thought he was saying that the hooks are still there for the PPC version of OS X and that they still use those hooks.

Reply Score: 1

If I read correctly
by flav2000 on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:14 UTC
flav2000
Member since:
2006-02-08

The engineer mentioned that Rosetta only translates PPC code into x86 code. Unlike the 68k to PPC transition, there is no hooks or handles that allows an application to run modular code native to the architecture.

So, even in the 68k to PPC transition, Adobe is able to use modules that run PPC native code to provide performance increase whereas in the Rosetta case i'ts either PPC or x86.

Yeah, if that's the case I would be looking at CS3 rather than porting CS2.

Reply Score: 1

Xcode
by MediaSex on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:19 UTC
MediaSex
Member since:
2006-02-08

Xcode is a pile of shit.

I can't imagine the nightmare it must be to have to try to get Xcode to handle a project of Photoshop's size.

Xcode:

* Project indexing is broken - silently fails for most of my projects

* Text editing is painfully slow

* The documentation/help interface is hideous

* The lack of a tabbed interface in 2006 is inexcusable

* The whole program is fragile like mad

* So many simple things that worked so seamlessly in CodeWarrior are implemented in obscure/clunky/retarded ways in Xcode

* A handful of just basic text editing/selection bugs that no Mac application should ever have

* Mystery breakpoints

* Absurdly limited debugger variable display - no default display of strings

* No display of active global variable values without going to a special dialog to manually add them

* Persistent dependency bugs

* Even something a trivial as displaying the pop-up list of functions in a file takes forever to show up on any source file with more than a few functions in it. CodeWarrior on old 68k Macs could handle huge files instantaneously. Boggle Xcode devs.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the Xcode team. Incompetence. Poor judgment. Take your pick.

The whole Xcode team needs to be let go.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Xcode
by stew on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:12 UTC in reply to "Xcode"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"* Text editing is painfully slow"

If you look at it with Shark or SpinControl, Xcode is wasting the vast majority of time when text editing in NSTextView and NSTypesetter code. They should just get rid of NSTextView and use either a Carbon text field or build a custom text field like TextMate uses it.

Reply Score: 2

This is a build/IDE problem...
by whartung on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:39 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

This problem isn't (necessarily) with their code. The problem is with the tool.

When Apple went from 68K to PPC, Adobe could replace portions of application with PPC code as it came on line, and they could do it quickly. If they replaced a single plug in, they'd need only test a single plug in and not the entire application.

They can't do that with OS X Intel. They have to rebuild and recompile the entire thing.

And anyone who has built large volumes of C/C++ code have experienced problems where the code says one thing and the compiler gives something else.

That means every part of the application needs to be tested. That's an enormous QA effort.

Then, finally, the IDE having issues with the project size.

So, since they need to QA the next version completely anyway, they're in a better position to make that one universal than to rush out a copy of CS2.

Reply Score: 2

That does it!
by Clinton on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:42 UTC
Clinton
Member since:
2005-07-05

I'm going to give Adobe the bird by switching over to Macromedia.

Oh wait...

Reply Score: 1

Nice try Adobe
by tyrione on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:11 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

No applications work in Xcode of a large scale? I forgot! OS X is a small project. All the Pro apps are small projects. Quark products are small. I can go on and on and on.

9 years Adobe. You've had 9 years to either adopt towards Cocoa or leave the platform.

Shit or get off the pot.

Reply Score: 3

adobe sucks
by sp29 on Fri 24th Mar 2006 21:37 UTC
sp29
Member since:
2006-01-04

Adobe had years to update, if they can totally rewrite Premiere from the ground up for the PC, they could of did it for Photoshop.

You know they've at least known Apple was going to switch for about a good year or more. Heck it's almost a year that we've know and rumors have been flying around for more.

I want to see an Apple solution. Maxon Cinema 4D was ready a longtime ago for Intel Macs.

Reply Score: 2

Release date of CS3
by TechniCookie on Sat 25th Mar 2006 10:38 UTC
TechniCookie
Member since:
2005-11-09

The PDF claims that we can still rely on their 18-24 months release cycle. CS2 was released April 2005. I guess that gives them 6-12 months.

Reply Score: 1

Well
by Nelson on Sat 25th Mar 2006 12:28 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I mean what do you expect, he basically slapped this universal binary bs on them I mean perhaps he could at the least provide a good development toolkit or give them forewarning a lot longer before hand.. it's stupid that some people are calling their code "Obsolete" because it won't work on two DIFFERENT architectures..a commercial IMAGE EDITING SOFTWARE..funny.

Reply Score: 0

Keep in mind...
by Pseudo Cyborg on Sat 25th Mar 2006 22:30 UTC
Pseudo Cyborg
Member since:
2005-07-09

... they also need to begin streamlining and merging Macromedia code with Adobe code. In addition to being a proper Universal Binary, CS3 will also be the begining of their new era.

Reply Score: 1