[sdf]

Quote:

---

This is nonsense. We're still talking about 10 times more sales potential for a Universal app than an intel only one. No way the "extra cost" of development (as in I doubt it would actually be that much, it's not like there some dearth of engineers at Adobe who have to struggle to figure out how to use a G5 for all it's worth; hell multi-processor G4s and 5s have been around a lot longer than multi-processor intel systems) would equal or surpass that.

---

Okay. Where's your facts? What makes you think 10x as many people would buy a PowerPC based version?
I don't know anyone using a PowerPC-based Mac for audio or video work anymore.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is nonsense. We're still talking about 10 times more sales potential for a Universal app than an intel only one. No way the "extra cost" of development (as in I doubt it would actually be that much, it's not like there some dearth of engineers at Adobe who have to struggle to figure out how to use a G5 for all it's worth; hell multi-processor G4s and 5s have been around a lot longer than multi-processor intel systems) would equal or surpass that.

---

Okay. Where's your facts? What makes you think 10x as many people would buy a PowerPC based version?
I don't know anyone using a PowerPC-based Mac for audio or video work anymore.

---

Everyone I know is using a G5.
Again, I question the cost for developing a Universal application versus an Intel-only application. Xcode outputs the Universal and automatically optimizes it for the G5.

[montgomery_burns]

Quote:

---

"Heres the reality: Apples migration to Intel chips means that its easier to develop for both Mac and Windows, because instead of splitting development resources optimizing for two different chip architectures, you can focus on just one,

---

Does this mean that we can look forward to complete feature parity between Mac and Windows versions of applications, instead of finding out that certain features are only available in the Windows version? And simultaneous releases of Mac and Windows versions of applications?

[moose_n_squirrel]

Not necessarily. From what I have read about the annoying feature discrepancies in MS Office and Acrobat, some cross-platform features are not available because of certain Windows services that are simply not on OS X to access, no matter what CPU you're on.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

Does this mean that we can look forward to complete feature parity between Mac and Windows versions of applications, instead of finding out that certain features are only available in the Windows version? And simultaneous releases of Mac and Windows versions of applications?

---

It depends on the problems are. Features that are very processor specific will benefit by the advantage of Mactel. Features that rely on some service of Windows itself won't benefit. Features that rely on some middleware that only exists for Windows won't benefit.
Intel Macintosh is a huge step forward in terms of making it easier to create both Mac and Windows versions of applications. It solves the processor problem. Many other hurdles still remain.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

Again, I question the cost for developing a Universal application versus an Intel-only application. Xcode outputs the Universal and automatically optimizes it for the G5.

---

There are some applications that are good candidates for easy Universal development as you describe. Mostly "normal" C and C code fits into this category. It took me less than ten minutes to make a Universal version of HexEdit. The editing was working perfectly fine. I was excited about that until I got to the disassembler feature and then I gave up because the disassembler is, by definition, processor specific.
Bit-level operations (such as found in an audio app) are not good candidates for Universal development. Bit level operations really need to be handwritten for a specific processor. Compiler optimization doesn't really address this need. You can't just check a box in XCode to make something run Universal.

[adobephile]

Quote:

---

The internal struggle adobephile must be feeling right now is great. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

Aw, thanks tallscot! Didn't know you cared!
Fact is, though, I'm not a forum troll. I just feel compelled from time to time to slam idiots when the occasion calls for it--especially when they're mouthpieces proselitysing their party line against decent companies.
Seems like whenever Apple or Adobe make a significant move these characters come out of the woodwork and yap yap about their particular hobbyhorse "issue" and blame the big bad A for being so (supid/inept/anit-/etc.). Then that company goes ahead and does it, things settle down, and reasonable people just upgrade their equipment/software and get on with it.
I totally agree with the viewpoint that an Intel-native version of an Adobe for Mac app is far better than no app, and far better than a Windoze-only app.
For any of these characters scraping the extremes of barely pertinent "evidence" to support their "cause," why do they so conveniently ignore the fact that Lightroom came out in public beta for Mac FIRST, and that it became Universal a couple betas ago?
The real evidence that I see and have seen for TWO DECADES of using Adobe products professionally--fulltime to make my living--is:
They're incredibly enabling
They run reliably with few flaws or weaknesses
They've been improved over and over over the years, resulting in much improved functionality and creative enablement
As much as I'd love to see, for one thing, platform parity for all of Adobe's PDF software products, I can yet recognize the role that simple economics plays in the matter. For some apps, there simply isn't enough of a Mac market for them.
This outspoken Adobe guy makes a good point in that, with the advent of Mactel, there is much better potential for Adobe to rethink and produce Mac versions of more of its apps in the future.
The fact that these upgrades don't happen as fast as some would like still is, and has proven to be many times in the past, no good reason to suspect Adobe for not being still behind the Mac. Quite the contrary. They've always spent the time and money to get it right.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The internal struggle adobephile must be feeling right now is great. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

Aw, thanks tallscot! Didn't know you cared!
Fact is, though, I'm not a forum troll. I just feel compelled from time to time to slam idiots when the occasion calls for it--especially when they're mouthpieces proselitysing their party line against decent companies.
Seems like whenever Apple or Adobe make a significant move these characters come out of the woodwork and yap yap about their particular hobbyhorse "issue" and blame the big bad A for being so (supid/inept/anit-/etc.). Then that company goes ahead and does it, things settle down, and reasonable people just upgrade their equipment/software and get on with it.
I totally agree with the viewpoint that an Intel-native version of an Adobe for Mac app is far better than no app, and far better than a Windoze-only app.
For any of these characters scraping the extremes of barely pertinent "evidence" to support their "cause," why do they so conveniently ignore the fact that Lightroom came out in public beta for Mac FIRST, and that it became Universal a couple betas ago?
The real evidence that I see and have seen for TWO DECADES of using Adobe products professionally--fulltime to make my living--is:
They're incredibly enabling
They run reliably with few flaws or weaknesses
They've been improved over and over over the years, resulting in much improved functionality and creative enablement
As much as I'd love to see, for one thing, platform parity for all of Adobe's PDF software products, I can yet recognize the role that simple economics plays in the matter. For some apps, there simply isn't enough of a Mac market for them.
This outspoken Adobe guy makes a good point in that, with the advent of Mactel, there is much better potential for Adobe to rethink and produce Mac versions of more of its apps in the future.
The fact that these upgrades don't happen as fast as some would like still is, and has proven to be many times in the past, no good reason to suspect Adobe for not being still behind the Mac. Quite the contrary. They've always spent the time and money to get it right.

---

I have been a big Adobe fan for many years, however I remember when Adobe's innovation stagnated because of a lack of competition. Then Macromedia came along and kicked them into gear. I worry about Adobe's future product offerings.
I do hope they put Encore/Audition/Premiere Pro on the Mac. I would seriously consider switching to that setup over FCPS. I really, really love Motion, though. I'd have to figure out a way to get it separately...
BTW, I didn't mean to imply you are a forum troll. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif I was poking fun because your favorite developer is kind of dissing Mac users. No worries. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[adobephile]

[indent]Quote:

---

BTW, I didn't mean to imply you are a forum troll. I was poking fun because your favorite developer is kind of dissing Mac users. No worries.

---

[/indent]
Thanks for clarifying. I honestly didn't take any offense from this, as I didn't interpret it as a slam against Mac users as such--just the zealots, but I took him to mean the "holdouts", the recalcitrant bums who think old products--their versions--should be supported forever so that they won't have to spend any more time/money in upgrading/learning new versions.
As for innovation, I don't think it necessarily needs to be dramatic to be valid. Incremental improvements in response to user requests which stand out from the lot are to me quite valid, and when a number of such are introduced into a new version, then it's most likely worth the purchase of an upgrade.
I don't know what major innovation we're waiting for right now, but there's certainly no going back from the original Adobe/Apple invention: desktop publishing. Since that era, there has been the general shift away from paper, again facilitated, if not directly instigated by Adobe and pdf.
So now they're getting behind digital photography and sound for the cratives and the shift towards electronic media. But beyond HD, I don't know what's on the horizon.
Perhaps holographic HD? As you probably realize, the purpose of science fiction is to inspire science to innovate. Star Trek's holodeck isn't a bad idea in my mind. Having seen X-Men III, I'm impressed with its degree of realism in a non-cartoon motif.

[tallscot]

[indent]Quote:

---

[indent]Quote:

---

BTW, I didn't mean to imply you are a forum troll. I was poking fun because your favorite developer is kind of dissing Mac users. No worries.

---

[/indent]
Thanks for clarifying. I honestly didn't take any offense from this, as I didn't interpret it as a slam against Mac users as such--just the zealots, but I took him to mean the "holdouts", the recalcitrant bums who think old products--their versions--should be supported forever so that they won't have to spend any more time/money in upgrading/learning new versions.
As for innovation, I don't think it necessarily needs to be dramatic to be valid. Incremental improvements in response to user requests which stand out from the lot are to me quite valid, and when a number of such are introduced into a new version, then it's most likely worth the purchase of an upgrade.
I don't know what major innovation we're waiting for right now, but there's certainly no going back from the original Adobe/Apple invention: desktop publishing. Since that era, there has been the general shift away from paper, again facilitated, if not directly instigated by Adobe and pdf.
So now they're getting behind digital photography and sound for the cratives and the shift towards electronic media. But beyond HD, I don't know what's on the horizon.
Perhaps holographic HD? As you probably realize, the purpose of science fiction is to inspire science to innovate. Star Trek's holodeck isn't a bad idea in my mind. Having seen X-Men III, I'm impressed with its degree of realism in a non-cartoon motif.

---

[/indent]
I agree about some people being unreasonable about legacy.
You know, it's always dangerous to imply there really isn't any more improvement that can be had. Motion shows us that even an old application like After Effects can instantly become lame (IMHO). When I first learned Motion, I kept saying, "Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of/done this before?"
Adobe did get stale a while back. Photoshop didn't have layers for way too long and it also had that dumb text dialog for way too long.

[adobephile]

[indent]Quote:

---

. . .You know, it's always dangerous to imply there really isn't any more improvement that can be had. Motion shows us that even an old application like After Effects can instantly become lame (IMHO). When I first learned Motion, I kept saying, "Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of/done this before?"
Adobe did get stale a while back. Photoshop didn't have layers for way too long and it also had that dumb text dialog for way too long.

---

[/indent]
Hey, quit putting words in my mouth! I did NOT say or imply any such thing. I simply said that, short of dramatic innovation, that incremental improvements (a number at a time) are valid reasons for updates. I'd be among the first to welcome amazing/dramatic/impressive innovation. But a company can't be expected to produce such every time they put out an update.

[sdf]

[indent]Quote:

---

Again, I question the cost for developing a Universal application versus an Intel-only application. Xcode outputs the Universal and automatically optimizes it for the G5.

---

[/indent]
I sincerely hope you're joking.

[whitedog]

A guy from Adobe has the nerve to publicly express his impatience with all the flack they have to take from ill-informed Mac fanatics and, like Pavlov's dogs, ill-informed Mac fanatics throw a rabid fit - thus making his point for him.
That's not to say that every decision made by Adobe, or by Apple, for that matter, is Gospel, but, good grief, give the conspiracy theories a rest already. They reveal far more about the theorist than they do about the subject of his paranoia. Get a clue.