Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Businesses Software Apple

Apple Responds to Adobe 148

Posted by pudge from the wheeee dept.
Thargok333 writes "Apple calls out Adobe on the 'PC is Faster' article linked from the Adobe website. They state that it is an After Effects bug, which they are working close to Adobe to fix. With Adobe's idea of G4 optimization, I am not impressed that a 'single 1.25 GHz G3' gets beat by a P4 3 GHz."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Responds to Adobe More

Apple Responds to Adobe

Comments Filter:

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by momerath2003 ( 606823 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @06:19PM (#5600645) Journal
    ***News Flash*** IBM Restarts G3 Production In a move deemed to promote older processors, IBM has continued production of its G3 line. In its latest press release, it announced that it has incorportaed the new 1.25GHz processor into a special edition Macintosh dubbed the "1.25 GHz G3 model." Our sources speculate that this may indeed not be the case, and that this was just a typo. More details as they emerge.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by IAmATuringMachine! ( 62994 )
      I think the point is that the G4 is essentially a G3 with an Altivec unit, and that Adobe's Altivec optimizations are quite crap. Similarly, their dual processor optimizations are also qutie crap. Thus, even though the actual machine was a 2x1.25 GHz G4, to AE it performed as would a 1x1.25 GHz G3.

      QED
      • Its more than that. G4's have much better floating points and are designed for smp. The G3 was meant to be a low power, low cost consumer chip.
        • I thought the G4 FP improvements were because it intrinsically routed some of those ops through the AltiVec units.

          AFAIK, the G4 was a G3 with SMP circuitry and AltiVec units, at least in it's first incarnation. It's been a while since it debuted though, and the evidence that the G4 has become more streamlined since branching from the G3 is good (if they are the same 'core' the G3 would be able to clock much higher since it's smaller).
    • What I wouldn't give to have a recent-design G3 in my old blue-n-white.

      I wish someone would produce new G3s with giant integral and backside caches, they would absolutely fly on low-end and midrange servers where altivec is nothing more than extra heat to dissipate.

      Anyone know of a way to get one of those swanky new 750CXe G3s from the latest iBook into an older blue-and-white? They're different pinouts and voltages from my POV.
      • One of the problems is that the current IBM G3 processors do not have the bus compatability pins for the old 60x bus. The 60x bus is found on every pre-AGP G4 Power Mac, so this is a serious problem. The current G4 processor do have the 60x bus compatability pins and support the proper bus multipliers for proper operation on the pre-AGP G4 Power Macs. Now there was some talk a while ago of Sonnet producing a 750CXe G3 upgrade for the old Powerbook 2400, which would have required another IC that would tra
  • Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves! Two computers enter! One Computer leaves!

    I hope Steve Jobs takes this beyond Thunderdome!
  • So the graphs have just been reversed caus apple talked to Adobe?
  • With Adobe's idea of G4 optimization

    How about a native program first?

    Quartz? What's that?
    • Native != Cocoa, my friend. Or rather, not all native apps are Cocoa, nor are all Cocoa apps native (I doubt you'd call a Cocoa/Java app "native", for example).

      Carbon is every bit as native as Cocoa. It is true that Apple was too lenient in its backward-compatibility measures; by not forcing developers to take advantage of new technologies while porting their apps, we've seen the rise of Bad Carbon Ports, epitomized by (ironically) AppleWorks but seen to lesser degrees in other apps as well. However, a Car

  • Honest question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcgroarty ( 633843 ) <brian...mcgroarty@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @06:33PM (#5600794) Homepage
    Honest question for the folks who believe the Mac should be faster...

    These are bus bandwidth-intensive operations. Given that the fastest Mac has DDR266 memory and it's not banked for parallel access or otherwise arranged for additional benefit, what aspect of the G4 architecture do you believe should be giving it an edge in these bandwidth-constrained tasks?

    • It's DDR333, but the FSB actually limits it to SDR speeds.

      That's why going to DDR was more marketing than anything else.

    • An Honest Answer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HotButteredHampster ( 614950 ) <s@biickert.shaw@ca> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @07:34PM (#5601263) Homepage

      I'll try to give an honest answer. I have this very same argu^H^H^H^Hconversation with one of the developers I work with pretty frequently. To give you a bit of background, I am a software developer on multiple platforms including Mac OS X, but I spend most of my time on Windows.

      Performance in a given task is not defined by frontside bus bandwidth. It is defined in the amount of useful work done in a given time.

      All things being equal, the computer platform with the highest raw performance should perform more useful work in a given time. But things are never equal. How many different parts of the operating system and application are mixed in with the process? How many different developers of varying skill levels have added code to the process? Under normal circumstances, a given algorithm can vary between log n and n-squared processing time, depending on the quality of the developer's insight to the problem at hand.

      Perhaps an analogy: put me on a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and let me race against Nicky Hayden on a GSX-R600. By rights, I've got almost twice the horsepower. But there is no freakin' way I'll get around a racetrack faster! Objective fact: the raw performance of the GSX-R1000 is higher. Objective fact: the GSX-R600 made it around the racetrack faster. Conclusion: the raw performance of the platform was not the dominant factor in the test.

      So, do I expect the Mac to be faster? No, I expect it to be slower. But I will not argue when I am presented with meaningful benchmarks which contradict that presumption, either. What those benchmarks are saying is that the variables other than raw performance are dominating the equation.

      • Some how I think you're bringing up Nicky Hayden to the wrong crowd. BTW, I'm bettng the kid could beat you on an unmodified SV650 too. ;)

        As to your point, I think you're correct in that FSB speed, though a critical factor when all else is equal, too much is different between these platforms to use it seriously.
    • The problem is that the cpu-bus is only 167Mhz, so even DDR266 ram is faster then what the cpu bus can handle.

      To make things worse this bus is SHARED between the 2 processors, making the processors really starve for memory bandwidth.

      And me: I just hope that IBM soon release the 970 chip, because MacOSX might be nice, but the hardware is to slow for me.

    • Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)

      by Steve Cowan ( 525271 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @09:49AM (#5606335) Journal
      Given that the fastest Mac has DDR266 memory and it's not banked for parallel access or otherwise arranged for additional benefit, what aspect of the G4 architecture do you believe should be giving it an edge in these bandwidth-constrained tasks?

      Off the top of my head I can think of the shorter pipeline and AltiVec. But, should the G4 have an "edge"? Who really cares?

      Years ago, the Mac platform had the edge in performance and clock speed thanks to Power Computing's "Power Tower Pro 200". At that time nobody was whining that Windows has to switch to PPC in order to remain viable.

      The "honest answer", the most relevant thing I can add to this, is that the PPC architecture and the Pentium architecture tend to leapfrog each other every few years, and right now it looks like PPC is losing by a small margin.

      I'm not holding my breath, but IBM's 970 and other iterations of the "Power 4" line may well tip the scales slightly in the other direction. For a little while, at least.

      Before Steve Jobs re-joined Apple he was interviewed in Rolling Stone (I think, or maybe it was Spin), and when asked how he felt about Apple's move to PowerPC architecture his response was that he was happy for Apple, because now they've got a Pentium of their own. Of course he was with NeXT at the time, but the point is that Apple, Motorola and Intel really don't care that much who is making faster machines, as long as they're marketable as being as fast as they can be.

      Battling over processor speed is just what Intel/AMD/Motorola/IBM would like us to be doing, because of the few of us who are really qualified to say which architecture is faster, an even smaller percentage of those people realize just how moot the point is.

      A slight Wintel performance edge is not going to have thousands of Mac users rushing over to the other side. And it isn't performance that makes Windows users switch to Mac.

    • Here's an older usenet posting [google.com] by Chris Cox from Adobe.

  • New performance measure (Score:4, Funny)

    by verloren ( 523497 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @06:37PM (#5600828)
    Between PCs vs Macs, and AMD vs Intel, we need a new way of measuring performance that doesn't get tied up in facts and speeds. Might I suggest the Decimal Unit Performance Estimate (DUPE), based on how much you can get done:

    1 - Nothing (aka "Jack", "Sod all", "Bugger all")
    2 - Something, but barely
    3 - Enough to stay awake
    4 - Enough to stay employed
    5 - Enough to make an actual contribution
    6 - Enough to achieve, oh, what's it called, oh yes "job satisfaction" (avoided obvious orgasm joke)
    7 - Loads
    8 - Loads and loads
    9 - Shedloads
    10 - Absolute Shedloads

    The reader is left to assign the ranking to each system.

    Cheers, Paul
    • 11 - Host a site linked from a Slashdot.org article without getting slashdotted
      • "You see, most blokes will be serving at 10. You're on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push to handle a Slashdotting...Eleven. One faster."

        "Why don't you just make 10 faster and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little faster?"

        (insert pause)

        "These go to 11."

  • The trouble is, x86s really are faster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ebcdic ( 39948 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @06:39PM (#5600851)
    Of course Apple will reject claims that their machines are slow, but sooner or later they're going to have to do something about it. I run straightforward CPU intensive programs such as XML processors, and for them Macs are roughly 20% slower *per MHz* than Intel and AMD processors. Given that the clock speeds of the fastest x86s are more than twice those of the fastest Macs, I can run three times as fast on a Linux or BSD machine costing the same as a Mac.

    No amount of tweeking to use special purpose instructions or multiple processors is going to beat that in the long term, so if the PPC people don't do something about it soon, Apple will have to switch. Of course that would be a very expensive move, but fortunately Apple can hope that just the threat of it will be enough to make Motorola and IBM pull their fingers out.

    • No amount of tweeking to use special purpose instructions or multiple processors is going to beat that in the long term, so if the PPC people don't do something about it soon, Apple will have to switch.

      How about a 900MHz front-side BUS like the IBM 970 has? Would that help at all?

      • How about a memory controller right in the CPU?

        And a HyperTransport link with 6.4 gigabytes per second of bandwidth (for AGP, PCI, Gigabit, SATA, etc.)

        Like the Athlon 64/Opteron.

        The 970 won't be the only 64-bit consumer chip on the market this October.
    • 1) XML parsing is memory, cache, and possibly hard-disk *intensive* depending one exactly what you are doing. It is more I/O intensive than anything.

      2) If you are getting 20% slower per MHz, either your math is screwy or your configuration is.

      3) There are very fast XML parsers for the mac on the market. Find one.

      4) That you claim they are 20% slower per MHz against both Intel and AMD processors, which do not run at the same speed per MHz throws your credability off.

  • HZ (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dhall ( 1252 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @06:49PM (#5600949)
    Quite often the argument is "who has the bigger number"? The PC processor is often attractive due to it's higher number versus... a Mac. Obviously it isn't an "apples to apple" comparison, different architectures rarely are.

    The number of cycles for your pipeline, versus the number of concurrent threads of execution through the same pipelines?

    I've always considered the intel family to be a very racy and fast sports cars. Versus other processors which tend to be a little slower trucks. They don't go as fast, but they carry more payload. In today's market of "multi-tasking", well written programs can take advantage of a processor that doesn't get bogged down with "stalled" pipes. Also the frequency can only be "cranked up" so high...

    There is also a focus on where is Adobe commiting their development work. There is a lot to be said for programs written and developed natively, versus those which must be ported over to other platforms. Carmack originally developed on the Mac first for Q3, due to the inherent limitations for that platform. That made porting it to Linux and Windows much easier.

    Too often the HZ on the processor is used as a crutch to explain away the lack of development know-how (or lack of funding) for multiple Operating Systems. There are so many products on the market today that are only support on 2k/NT. Sadly any port to another OS is dismally lacking... and the platform is blamed for this.

    Is Adobe still focusing the majority of their development on Apple? Was the conversion from OS9 to OSX too difficult for them to handle? Are they writing native code? I think it was reckless for Adobe to make the blanket statement that PC is faster, and sounds more like some internal pissing match between the companies.
  • "I am not impressed that a 'single 1.25 GHz G3' gets beat by a P4 3 GHz."

    Actually it was a dual 1.25 GHz G4.
    • When I read that I thought he was snidely suggesting a crappy multithreading implementation and a lack of Altivec optimization.

      Dunno.

    • As an anonymous coward pointed out in the other forum: Check out the comparisons between a 933 MHz and a dual 1 GHz mac w/ AE--they are very close, indicating that AE isn't utilizing the second processor at all [creativemac.com].

      Also, I do not believe AE is altivec enabled.

      So, in short, it was a single 1.25 GHz G4 without any help from AltiVec.

      Next, I don't trust any benchmarking review which reads like an advertisement for Dell--which the original article does.

  • Seriously though, whatever you make of the original benchmarks, they were oviously a thorn in Apple's side or they wouldn't have responded.

  • Well hell... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PrimeWaveZ ( 513534 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @07:53PM (#5601366)
    I think that Adobe is quite lazy. Why you ask?

    I've heard that a good amount of the base code in their products is in Pascal. While I don't know if this is true, it would also imply a helluva lot of 68k code still lurking about in their software. Going through both 68k emulation as well as another compatibility API is just bad. I hope this is not the case.

    Also, could one think that they are not optimizing their new PPC Carbon/Cocoa code as much for the platform? Surely the difference between a coder and a good coder could be measured in application performance, at least somewhat. While I hate math, getting better performance takes finding the time-consuming calculations and reducing it all to the easiest possible operations.

    Why not put some thought into making performance better rather than making gee-whiz features that most folks never asked for.

    And that Apple has been able to tweak MUCH better performance and features out of products like the Final Cut series shows that it CAN be done. Is Adobe really wanting to spend the time and effort it needs to in order to get performance to an acceptable level?

    God forbid, someone might have to write some stuff in ASM to get results. Blasphemy!

    As Vince Lombardi once said:
    "You can't make a chicken sandwich out of chicken shit."

    • Re:Well hell... (Score:4, Informative)

      by macrom ( 537566 ) <macrom75@hotmail.com> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:17AM (#5604000) Homepage
      I've heard that a good amount of the base code in their products is in Pascal. While I don't know if this is true, it would also imply a helluva lot of 68k code still lurking about in their software. Going through both 68k emulation as well as another compatibility API is just bad. I hope this is not the case.

      Mac developers have had almost 10 years to get rid of the 68K code. Fat apps existed for a while, but I would be beyond shocked to find out there was a single 'mov' of 68K code in any Adobe product. It's not like they employ a bunch of lazy programmers -- they have a very talented lot.

      Why not put some thought into making performance better rather than making gee-whiz features that most folks never asked for.

      Again, I would doubt this is the case here. At a lesser development organisation, maybe, but not Adobe. Especially given that they are right up the street (so to speak) from Apple, they've got all the opportunity in the world to get help optimizing their products. And most of the gee-whiz features you find in a shrink-wrap program come about because more than a handful of customers asked for them. Sure, developers always find neat little things to do, but Usenet and other forums are far from short on ideas from everyday users. You may not use a cutesy feature, but plenty of other people will.

      And that Apple has been able to tweak MUCH better performance and features out of products like the Final Cut series shows that it CAN be done.

      The catch here is that Apple has one platform to target. They could write the whole of the app in PPC assembly and no one would care. Adobe has to maintain a code base that stretches across 2 platforms, and they have to weigh the cost of maintaining divergent sources with the benefit gained by increasing platform-specific code. It's not an easy trade, but in the end, they will probably have more shared code that is not 100% optimized for this reason.

      Also, we don't know what Adode's Mac revenue stream looks like these days. You would think that they get a ton of Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. sales from the Mac side, but I see more and more Windows boxes on the desks of artists and designers. Again, this is a cost-benefit situation that Adobe must analyze, and maybe they don't see the need to pour hundreds or thousands on man-hours into optimizing tiny bits of their Mac code for a few more sales.

      On the other hand, maybe Adobe realizes they need to tighten up the PPC/Mac code, but they are running short on resources for that. So they post a benchmark on their site saying Windows kicks Apple's ass. Apple panicks and says, "Not so!" The next day, 2 of Apple's crack engineers drive over to Adobe and help them optimize code for a week, writing a bunch of PPC stuff that Adobe didn't have time for. Voila! They get some free (or cheaper) help and Apple looks like the hero. Marketing bullshit at it's finest.
      • OS X does not use the 68K emulator outside of Classic, so there'd better not be any 68K code in a native Carbon app like Photoshop...

  • Excess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lux55 ( 532736 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @07:57PM (#5601388) Homepage Journal
    I'm a software developer, so my machine needs only modest requirements. Mostly a copy of PostgreSQL, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Apache, etc, and a decent text editor (BBEdit or NEdit preferred).

    Last summer I left a job where I was working full time on an AMD 1.5GHZ with 512MB RAM and a 7200 IDE drive. It ran Red Hat 7.2 and Gnome 1.4. It was WAY more than sufficient for my needs.

    I left and moved my work onto a TiBook 667MHZ with 512MB RAM. Performance difference of the machine? Negligible. Performance difference of myself? Huge.

    The truth is I really like both Gnome and OSX, but in terms of the "it just works" factor, OSX has a huge lead on everyone. Apple has the ability to accomplish something rare in human interface design: To be simple enough for the newbies to be comfortable, without compromising the power. No other system does this as well (yet).

    My other home system is an AMD 1800+ (1.5GHZ) also with 512MB RAM. There's no real difference in system performance for 90% of what I do. Still, I only use that machine for testing and bug tracking, and spend countless hours perfectly satisfied with my TiBook. It's about personal preference though, in the end.

    • I suspect that since you can move between Gnome and OSX that *you* have a huge lead on everyone. You probably are not an average computer user...you're above average at least.

      That said, shouldn't those two machines be on roughly the same level as far as processing power goes? Then, to get myself in big trouble, is Gnome really supposed to be at the 'it just works' level? (Really, that's not a bash, just a question. Notice how I've left out my platform of choice?)

      • I'd say in most modern distros, Gnome does "just work" for many things. It's the little stuff though that still gives OSX an edge, IMO. I'm no super-user (except when I want to be ;)), and like I said it's a matter of personal preference too (or we'd all be happy with WinXP).
    • and spend countless hours perfectly satisfied with my TiBook. It's about personal preference though, in the end.

      That is one biiiiig troll lure if I ever saw one. :-)
    • I'm a software developer too, and I have some huge sets of software to build. The difference between a P3-933 and a P4-2.8 is huge for me. It cuts testing cycles down by about a factor of 2, and some builds down by a factor of 8. Linking is the biggest speedup, and I'm not sure if it's the memory space or the CPU speed, but it's by far the most noticeable change. Of course, this is because of a) the language the code is in, and b) the sheer amount of code. But there are people out there that really do bene
  • Hz?

    (oh man thats bad..) .. typing this from an 800 MHz iBook. Sluggish at times, but whatever. I prefer it to the other options despite the increased speed I might get by "switching" to x86.

  • equality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mbbac ( 568880 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @09:35AM (#5606257)
    Why was the prior article on this displayed on the front page, but this one only shows up under Apple?

  • I don't care about speed alone (Score:5, Informative)

    by 47PHA60 ( 444748 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @12:47PM (#5607953) Journal
    I can only speak to multimedia content generation. I have never measured the speed of my PowerMac dual 1GHz with Final Cut Pro against a 3GHz Pentium running Premiere, but I do know that after 3 years of using Adobe's products with third-party hardware and drivers on Windows, I gave up and got a Mac with Apple software.

    I bought 4 boxes: PowerMac, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, and a 6-to-4 pin firewire cable for camera. I have never purchased another accessory, peripheral, or software package, and the system is so well designed and executed that I can start an editing session in the morning and mail a 1 hour tape or DVD to a client by 5.

    With the Powerbook, I can shoot video and edit it on the plane home. If it's a long plane ride, I'll have the DVD burned before we land, while the guy in the seat next to me fights with his Vaio or Dell (I've been on many flights where some poor bastard gets no work done because Windows eats itself; it's happened to me too).

    My experiences over the past 5 years convince me that the Megahertz mongers have got the issues backwards. If you can first show me any combination of PC and laptop hardware on the Intel platform that can do everything I describe above for the exact same price, I will look at the speed of filter application or transition rendering.

    My point is that if Apple makes faster machines their superior systems will be better than they are now. If speed is the only improvement a PC with Windows and Adobe products offers, that system is still inferior to the Mac.
    • I agree with you wholeheartedly. I use Final Cut Pro extensively, but I teach FCP and Premiere. Usually during my Premiere classes people ask me what I think of the program and I tell them that Premiere has it's uses but it is not widely used in broadcast television or film production at all. It is used mostly by home users on Windows or by Multimedia houses who don't need all the bells and whistles that Avid, Media100 or FCP offer.

      I don't actually discourage them from using Premiere. It has it's uses. But

  • Not surprising in any way (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FredFnord ( 635797 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @08:51PM (#5611620)
    In 1997, Adobe started trying to get all of its customers to switch over to Windows from the Mac. This was when the Mac was in a really bad way, and Adobe simply didn't want to support it.

    Ever since then, Adobe has been treating the Mac as a second-class citizen. 'You could die someday', they seem to be saying, 'And we'd just as soon it were tomorrow.' It would be a lot cheaper for them not to have to develop two versions of any of their products, but until the number of Mac users in the businesses they sell to goes down, they can't jettison the Mac versions. So they've been gritting their teeth and bearing it.

    And then Apple comes along and makes software that actually competes with them! WHILE they were wishing they could get rid of Apple. If Adobe were a person, that would be a perfect recipe for getting them amazingly mad. 'We wanted to screw you over, and were just waiting for any opportunity... and here you are, screwing US instead!'

    Is it any surprise that Adobe will keep selling Mac software (because they have to), but use any convenient opportunity to get as many of their customers to use Windows as they can?

    -fred
    • They sell as much mac software (unit per unit) as they do Windows products... except for maybe acrobat.

      Mac Photoshop makes up the bulk of Photoshop registrations at Adobe. Sure millions of pirates out there probably have Windows copies of Photoshop, but the Macheads usually pay for their software and Adobe only really cares about the people who pay for and register their products.

      • Absolutely true, and completely irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)

        by FredFnord ( 635797 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @02:29PM (#5617322)
        Fact: Adobe spends significantly more developing for two systems than they would developing for only one.

        Fact: Adobe is in business to make money, and has, as most companies do, absolutely no loyalty to anyone except for its stockholders.

        Fact: If Adobe were to stop developing for one platform or the other, while it was still a viable platform, it would earn itself enormous ill will, and someone would step in with a replacement. And a good chunk of people would buy the replacement. (Let's just not discuss the GNU replacement here, okay? It's not the point.)

        From these three facts we can extrapolate a few things.

        Extrapolation: Adobe will not stop making either Macintosh or Windows products while a sizable chunk of their income comes from the platform in question.

        Extrapolation: If Adobe could keep all of their customers, while shifting development to one platform, they would do so in a heartbeat.

        Extrapolation: The only way the above could happen would be if one of the platforms were to basically die, or everyone using that platform with Adobe software were to switch over to the other platform.

        Extrapolation: Since they can't just discontinue their software on one platform without the above problem with it causing massive customer ill-will, the best way to bring about these circumstances is to make it more difficult to live on the platform they wish to kill, while simultaneously telling everyone how much better the other platform is.

        Extrapolation: They aren't interested in trying to kill Windows.

        -fred
        • They aren't interested in killing the Mac off either since such a huge portion of their sales are to Mac loyalists who would rather use Linux than switch to Windows on basic principal.

          Over the years, Adobe has made it easier and easier for me as a Mac user to enjoy their products and be productive on my platform of choice. It's only gotten better since their products went OS X native.

          Conclusion, THEY AREN'T TRYING TO KILL OFF THE MAC OR WINDOWS. They are trying to increase sales on both platforms.

          This
          • A serious attempt to kill off the Mac platform would be a simple refusal to release a Windows only version of Illustrator, Photoshop or InDesign.

            D'oh! What I meant was, if they refused to release a Mac version of one of their flagship products and went Windows only. (Sorry, the Linux versions aren't coming ANY time soon... unless the Mac users all switch over to Linux!)
  • If they would follow from Adobe to the actual test page [digitalvideoediting.com], they'd see that the Dell wipes up the floor with the Mac on Photoshop tests, too. Not by such a drastic margin (4.5v7.1s, 35.1v62s, and 3.4v4.5) but how does the AE bug apply there, hmm?
    • Read their testing methodology and look at their system configurations and the answer will become immediately evident.

      Not to mention that Photoshop forces the graphics card to render everything twice, and initial page reads like an advertisement for Dell...

Slashdot Top Deals

Friction is a drag.

Close