Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Apr 2008 19:50 UTC, submitted by tupp
Graphics, User Interfaces From John Nack's blog: "In the interest of giving customers guidance as early as possible, we have some news to share on this point: in addition to offering 32-bit-native versions for Mac OS X and 32-bit Windows, just as we do today, we plan to ship the next version of Photoshop as 64-bit-native for Windows 64-bit OSes only."
Permalink for comment 308365
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]:
by google_ninja on Sun 6th Apr 2008 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: "
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Eh, what? Tell me what broke during the transition from Panther to Tiger? From Tiger to Leopard? Apple releases a new version of OS X every year? There isn't an ounce of truth in anything that you've said.


Apple releases a new version every year to year and a half (not counting leopard). And to answer your question, pretty much everything breaks. Six months after a new version of OSX comes out, you can not use any new versions of pretty much anything unless you upgrade.

The fact that there are applications that work on Leopard and not on older systems has little to do with broken APIs. It's because Apple is introducing new APIs and in the case of Leopard, Objective-C 2.0 which developers willingly adopt that makes it impossible to support older versions of OS X. If the developers were so inclined, they'd ignore the new APIs/features and target 10.2+. It is still possible, but nobody does it since most users rarely lag by more than one OS X version.


For the most part, you are wrong. If you are talking about an API that is being kept around for compatibility (like carbon), that will not change from version to version. But Apple introduces breaking changes with every release. I have friends who are commercial apple developers, and have heard the woes first hand.

No? You're confusing API with ABI.


To a major vendor, there is little difference. Hardware companies do not make money from software, they make software to sell hardware. Linux makes drivers a maintenance nightmare, due to the fact that you may need to release a new version at any time.


If Microsoft could have dumped Win32 and MFC support, they would have gladly done it years ago.


Backwards compatibility has been the mantra at redmond pretty much since day one, often to a fault. From a purely technical point of view, Apple and Linux have the better approach. If something is broken, or poorly designed, you fix it. If that breaks existing apps, then it is their responsability to keep up to date.

To a major ISV like adobe, an API shift means a massive amount of work with very little visible gain to the end user. That is not the way they like to spend their money, and perfer to only update when they absolutely have to.

Don't get me wrong, I love apple passionately (look at my avatar, that was the first computer I owned, and to this day one of the best I have ever used). As an engineer, I perfer to rewrite when something is not as good as it could be. The idea of preserving a bug accross revisions for the sake of compatibility is just wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that from a practical sense, the microsoft way makes far more sense to a large ISV.

Like I pointed out in my last comment, the reality of the software world backs me up. Apple software is mostly done by small, agile shops who can keep up easily. Linux software is mostly done by engineers on their free time. And Microsoft has hands down the most commercial support for their platform.

Reply Parent Score: 3