Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Aug 2009 23:57 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Adobe has announced it is dropping PowerPC support from its next version of the Creative Suite for the Mac. "By the time the next version of the Suite ships, the very youngest PPC-based Macs will be roughly four years old. They're still great systems, but if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software, either. Bottom line: Time & resources are finite, and with big transitions underway (going 64-bit-native, switching from Carbon to Cocoa), you want Adobe building for the future, not for the past."
Order by: Score:
Not to surprising.
by theTSF on Thu 13th Aug 2009 02:02 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

It has been about 4 years since Apple has released Power PC Systems anyways. Any Power PC OS X systems would be well showing its age by now. And updating your CS will not probably be the best idea as the new features will probably run that much slower. Stick with the current version if you don't want to upgrade. If you do want to upgrade then you have reason to get a New system. It has been long enough to get a new one anyways.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not to surprising.
by alias on Thu 13th Aug 2009 07:27 UTC in reply to "Not to surprising. "
alias Member since:
2007-02-11

I have an old 1.67 G4 powerbook. The screen is not as bright as newer ones, and some edges around the keyboard are a little "worn off", but the rest still works perfectly. In many ways, this notebook blows off many low/mid-end notebooks I've seen using by my colleagues in these weeks (including performance).

I would have no reason to switch if it wasn't for an increasing number of programs built *only* for intel (for no reason whatsoever). I could certainly use Snow Leopard on this machine (and love to), but it's not supported. Again, this is not a terrible issue, but eventually stuff will only be compiled without *any* backward compatibility.

I could simply stay "behind", but being a developer, this is not acceptable. Not that I need the speed, honestly. I still prefer my opaque screen to the glass (even after trying it for months), and I love to be able to replace the battery with a fresh one when I'm traveling. On the hardware side, I see absolutely *no* reason to switch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not to surprising.
by flanque on Thu 13th Aug 2009 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to surprising. "
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Could you expand on the part about one notebook blowing off another?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Not to surprising.
by No it isnt on Thu 13th Aug 2009 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to surprising. "
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Actually, it's your fault, as a developer, that your PPC Mac will be outdated within a few months. Since Apple developers always think they need to stay updated, virtually no new software works on older revisions of OS X. And since Apple cuts off support for their hardware several years prematurely, older Macs can only run abandonware for older OS X versions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not to surprising.
by Raeth on Thu 13th Aug 2009 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to surprising. "
Raeth Member since:
2009-07-02

I think the key word here is "developer". Do you use any apps that may need more power, such as the Adobe suite and Apple's movie-editing stuff?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not to surprising.
by polaris20 on Thu 13th Aug 2009 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to surprising. "
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

By opaque you mean matte screen, yes? Apple now offers the 15" with an antiglare finish. Need more battery power than 8 hours? Get one of these:

http://www.hyperdrive.com/HyperMac-External-MacBook-Battery-and-Car...

Kind of a non-issue. As for your system's performance; Even most G5 systems are left behind by the cheapest MacBook Pro in terms of performance. I can't see how you'd possibly want to avoid upgrading.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not to surprising.
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 15th Aug 2009 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not to surprising. "
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Err... The cost?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not to surprising.
by boldingd on Thu 13th Aug 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to surprising. "
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I've got to ask, have you considered a linux distribution for your PPC Mac? I don't know what kind of developing you do, so it's probably not a practical option... but at least you'd have current software.

Reply Score: 1

BS
by phreck on Thu 13th Aug 2009 07:37 UTC
phreck
Member since:
2009-08-13

I am not PPC nor a Mac users, anyways:

That's utterly bs to me. Only because I don't waste hardware or upgrade often, it does not mean I don't like software upgrades.

Reply Score: 2

RE: BS
by Eddyspeeder on Thu 13th Aug 2009 18:06 UTC in reply to "BS"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

Of course it is a pity that the still very beautiful PowerBook G4's are running out of date.

Just as I will find it a pity that my beautiful unibody MacBook Pro will run out of date in a few years.

But this has *always* been Apple's philosophy (with the emphasis on always); not to keep dragging around with legacy stuff. Even Microsoft is tending towards such an approach.

So stop your whining. Please! I know Macs are expensive, but updating your hardware along with your software is really the way we should accept things are today.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BS
by fretinator on Thu 13th Aug 2009 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE: BS"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

But this has *always* been Apple's philosophy (with the emphasis on always); not to keep dragging around with legacy stuff.


I'm not a Mac dude (but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express), but I seem to remember the earlier Mac story to be just the opposite. For years, Mac supported a way for people to keep the same Mac and use add-in boards to keep up. I think people could even put PowerPC add-in boards into their 68K Mac. When they finally stopped doing that, leaving no upgrade path for some users, it was quite controversial.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: BS
by Jimbob on Thu 13th Aug 2009 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BS"
Jimbob Member since:
2005-07-07

May be a little hard to fit a new add-in board into a Ti-Book or any laptop for that matter, but I see your point. I guess if you brought a Mac Pro then you would be able to do that.

Did the LCIII allow and upgrade like that? (I'd kill for an LCIII running OS X).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: BS
by Eddyspeeder on Fri 14th Aug 2009 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BS"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

This is really new to me, so thanks for correcting me there, fretinator! ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BS
by tupp on Fri 14th Aug 2009 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE: BS"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

So stop your whining. Please! I know Macs are expensive, but updating your hardware along with your software is really the way we should accept things are today.

Yes. Just accept the Kool-Aid.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: BS
by Eddyspeeder on Fri 14th Aug 2009 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BS"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

Yep and move on from IE6

Reply Score: 1

Taking advantage of new systems
by Adurbe on Thu 13th Aug 2009 08:47 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I personally want the next version of photoshop to take advantage of everything the latest hardware and software has to offer. I certainly don't want to see it 'not use' a feature in order to protect backwards compatibility.

Lets not forget these G5 users can continue to usethe current photoshop to their hearts content. If you NEED a new feature of the new CS then it might be time to also upgrade your hardware (esp as the G5 ebay price is still quite high atm and I expect it will drop post snow leopard)

Reply Score: 2

What about QT?
by FunkyELF on Thu 13th Aug 2009 15:01 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

I thought they used it for Photoshop elements. If they used Qt wouldn't they get PPC support for free?

Reply Score: 2

RE: What about QT?
by KugelKurt on Thu 13th Aug 2009 22:01 UTC in reply to "What about QT?"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, not for optimized algorithms.
Adobe should've used Qt anyways. That way separate code bases for Mac and Windows GUIs would be avoided. Adobe had to port all GUI anyway when they moved from Carbon to Cocoa.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What about QT?
by FreakyT on Fri 14th Aug 2009 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: What about QT?"
FreakyT Member since:
2005-07-17

Well, not for optimized algorithms.
Adobe should've used Qt anyways. That way separate code bases for Mac and Windows GUIs would be avoided. Adobe had to port all GUI anyway when they moved from Carbon to Cocoa.


Then again, using cross platform toolkits generally means that the program looks and feels "not quite right" on all the platforms it runs on, so I feel like it makes more sense for them to develop "native" guis for each target platform.

Reply Score: 1

I'm frankly not surprised
by madcrow on Thu 13th Aug 2009 17:49 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

Apple seems to want everybody to move along to Intel hardware and pressuring ISVs like Adobe to only compile their apps for x86 is a big part of that. The fact that Apple is discontinuing PPC support in 10.6 (the version of OS X likely to be shipping when the next version of Adobe stuff comes out) probably has something to do with the decision also.

Nevertheless, I look forward to snapping up a cheap used G4 laptop once all the Jobs-worshiping masses are finally forced to move along.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm frankly not surprised
by Jimbob on Thu 13th Aug 2009 20:31 UTC in reply to "I'm frankly not surprised"
Jimbob Member since:
2005-07-07

I had a PPC, then brought the first Intel iMac, and was very happy with the upgrade. Heaps quicker. Stay on G4's if you want but I think the Intels are quicker.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'm frankly not surprised
by KugelKurt on Thu 13th Aug 2009 22:08 UTC in reply to "I'm frankly not surprised"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

High-end G4 notebooks have the miserable performance of middle-class Atom netbooks with the weight of modern Intel Core notebooks. Combine that with the horrible durability of old batteries (new ones are half the price of a new netbook) and you'll end up with a very expensive piece of slow hardware.

Oh, BTW: Try to get some SD RAM to increase the main memory to something somewhat acceptable.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm frankly not surprised
by Eddyspeeder on Fri 14th Aug 2009 23:16 UTC in reply to "I'm frankly not surprised"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

Also, don't pin this down to Steve Jobs. John Sculley (Apple's CEO before Jobs returned) considers not moving to the Intel platform one of his greatest mistakes during his Apple career:
http://macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=7045" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20071208100556/http://macworld.co.uk/new...

Like I said before, I too think the PowerBook G4 laptops were wonderful, beautiful, elegant and a whole lot of other descriptions involving praise. But I think most people idealize that beautiful G4 era.

Reply Score: 1