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."
Thread beginning with comment 107741
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Adobe legacy code...
by Tuishimi on Fri 24th Mar 2006 19:15 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 Parent Score: 1

RE: Adobe legacy code...
by edwdig on Fri 24th Mar 2006 20:36 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 Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Adobe legacy code...
by Tuishimi on Fri 24th Mar 2006 21:08 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 Parent Score: 1