Adobe Universal Binaries... in 2007 209
bo peterberg writes "According to a pdf on Adobe's website, they remain committed to supporting Intel-based Macs. However, Intel-based Macs will not be supported until the next upgrade of all creative products. The current version will not be re-released."
Go Aperture! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:5, Informative)
So much for LightTable destroying Aperture!
Actually, LightTable is the exception. They announced they will have a beta of it available shortly. Now if only Apple would release a competitor to Photoshop, Illustrator, and Framemaker maybe they'd come out with new versions of those products as well.
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:2)
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:5, Funny)
It would be unwise for Apple to release a photoshop competitor. Look what happened to the Mac version of Premier when Apple released Final Cut Pro...
You mean when Adobe killed it and most of the users migrated to Final Cut Pro, making Apple a lot of money?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. Its only now that Adobe is even getting their shit together enough to port their codebases to Xcode. If they had done this earlier, they would not have so much work ahead of them. (To be fa
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's such a shame that the TIFFany3 developers never did anything with that application. The GUI was fubar, with some work on that app it could have left Photoshop dead in the water, but then again, it's them we have to thank for QuartzExtreme and CoreImage, so maybe it was a good thing after all that they got bought out by Apple.
Not just Premiere (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not quite what happened...
Premiere was not discontinued for Mac until well after Final Cut's launch. Apple basically stole the entire market from them. When sales fell through the floor, Adobe discontinued the Mac version of Premiere, and also announced that basically all of their software should be run on PCs for best results, a historical first. This was essentially the beginnings of the major Apple/Adobe rivalry. (They were really pissed about iPhoto as well.)
It doesn't get mentioned a lot around here, but Premiere was hardly the only Apple casualty in that space; they have virtually eaten the nonlinear editing space in a very short span of time. Remember Avid? They are still around but not nearly the force they once were, a name pretty much synonymous with high end / cinema nonlinear editing. Media 100 also. Final Cut is a juggernaut, a totally killer app. And Apple has Final Cut Express to compete with as well. And then they picked up Shake and RAYZ and a few others to eat a piece of what SGI used to totally dominate.
The really funny part is, Final Cut started its life (as I know the story) at Adobe, as a radical new verison of Premiere after v4. Premiere 4 was super popular, but people who know it and used it will all tell you that v5 sucked big time. The reason for this is, the Premiere team had this great new interface but Adobe didn't want to deviate so radically from the old Premiere look and feel. In frustration a large number of them quit and went over to Macromedia, who started developing their own editing app called Final Cut. It evolved for a bit there, but Macromedia got cold feet and had a sort of had a truce with Adobe at the time, so they sold the unreleased codebase... to Apple.
(This is hearsay I received from a high mucketymuck at Adobe who was bombed on Bailey's at the time, so take as you will.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not just Premiere (Score:2)
Before I got to Apple, I really had no idea how much Avid had alienated their customers. It'll be a business-school case study someday. ;-)
I think Quark made it there as the case study first...
Re:Not just Premiere (Score:3, Funny)
you can do that?
Re:You forgot InDesign (Score:3, Informative)
Which competes with MS Publisher, not InDesign
Re:You forgot InDesign (Score:2)
And before you could say "oops what the fuck" it had mostly taken but all users from media100, later on it started hurting Avid sales and with their HD solutions (and a G5), they actually are taking over the market for solutions wich usually have a pricing with a few digits more than any FCP + HD capture card (Digital Vodoo, Kona, BlackMagic etc.). Also all of a
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:2)
Actually, Lightroom is expected to be Universal much sooner, as it is written largely in Lua [gusmueller.com], with the rest in Cocoa. Quite unlike the rest of Adobe's stuff.
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a G4 powerbook late last year, knowing there would be Intel powerbooks sometime this year. I don't mind waiting a rev. or two or even three, at which po
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:2)
Let's friggin hope Apple or another hardcore Cocoa developer is going to give them hell with a CoreImage enabled OS X only glory graphics editor. Now would be the best time to come up with something, because on Intel Macs Adobe's got nothing to counter them for another friggin year!
Got your financial incentive right here buddy!
Re:Go Aperture! (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I was shocked as well.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
HOLY SH!T!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
>didn't already hear, Steve Jobs singled out Quark in his keynote as
>already having a Universal Binary for QuarkXPress.
If your app is 100% cocoa, then producing an Intel binary is as simple as a recompile. If your app is a crappy port from the Windows version with lots of carbon legacy code, then you will have a lot of rewriting to do.
jfs
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:5, Interesting)
Though they may change their minds, who knows. So much for upgrading this year. I suppose this will work out better in the end, as the Intel Macs will get a chance to mature a little more.
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
My wife has an iMac, but we don't follow the details that closely. Have you actually seen Photoshop under emulation, or are you just speculating that it will be unusable for you? You may be 100% correct, but I don't know enough about it to make the call.
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
For my bride's computer, the only real thing that matters is her Adobe CS2 suite. I talked to Adobe about the time I upgraded to CS2, and they would (more or less) let you change from Wi
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked through the transition from 680x0 to PowerPC. I worked through the transition of OS 9 to OS X. These transitions are NEVER easy. I chose to get the most power I could out of the platform that currently works best. I'll wait to get an Intel Mac until they are well into year two of general use, and only after my must-have applications have had at least one set of bug fixes released to their Universal Binary versions.
-Chris
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
That's exactly what's wrong with Apple. the drastic changes.
That's also what's wrong with Microsoft, unwilling to make changes. Legacy support makes life hard for msoft.
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
That's also what's wrong with Microsoft, unwilling to make changes. Legacy support makes life hard for msoft.
Now which way is it? You can't have it both ways. Apple is bad, because they make drastic changes, Microsoft is bad because they don't. WTF...
I think Apple is perfectly right to make drastic changes. It hurts, but changes always do and this benefits us and technology as a whole in the long rung. It sure beats building cruft over cruft and ju
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
Not saying it's feasible, but I'd like to think someone might at least try.
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2)
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Calm down sparky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:2, Insightful)
The earliest I can reasonably be a Mac user is 2007.
You're pretty dense to be a Photoshop user. You just don't get it. Maybe the result of using Windows.
You can buy a PowerPC based Mac TODAY and you can buy Adobe software for a PowerPC based Mac TODAY. Where do you get this idea that you can't be a Mac user TODAY?
Adobe didn't make that decision.
Adobe made the decision not to recompile their existing release for Intel Macs. Apple has had the documentation out for making the universial binari
I was afraid of this.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like windfall time for Mac software vendors.
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
They admit it'll run slower, but they don't provide numbers, so I'll be curious to see if it's gun-to-the-head-must-upgrade slower, or just "hey, this isn't quite as snappy as it used to be" slower. The caveat is that Version Cue Workspace Server doesn't work at all. I wonder if they can patch that.
It's still a windfall for Mac software vendors.
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2, Informative)
It's funny. I work in a printshop, and we have to upgrade the minute something new comes out anyway, since someone out there always has the newest version. Our main production machines have CS, CS2, AI8/10, PS6/7, PM6/7, InD2, and QXP4/6 all installed at the same time. Just sayin'.
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
You have till june to light a fire under adobe, or I won't be buying your $5000 laptop.
Sincerely,
g-funk.
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:5, Funny)
We don't have $5000 laptops.
But we'd be delighted to charge you double on our top model to get to a price of just a little less than 5000$.
Sincerely,
Steve Jobs
CEO, Apple
P.S.:
Fuck Adobe.
Watch for PhotoShopMyAss Pro 1.0 coming out soon from Apple
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
Sounds like a Fark PhotoShop contest.
Why not? (Score:2)
By going Intel they almost guarantee that a lot of their users will feel compelled to upgrade. While in the laptop range the upgrade issue can almost be moot, those with desktops may feel less pressure now but companies may end up forcing the issue on them by not having non-universal editions in the future.
This change does Apple very well, at the expense of many of their users. Hopefully they will be able garner new users as well. If it were easier to run *nix/Window
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
It really is a case of either develope new versions which will be universa
Re:I was afraid of this.... (Score:2)
Even with CS2 most professional designers I know don't inted to buy the upgrade. Why? Not enough incentive to do so.
Guess what would be the compensation for Adobe for their efforts to come up with a UB version? How about finally having tons of people upgrade, because they finally get a real reason to do so.
Right now the only incentive to upgrade are shitty NEW FEATURES, of CS2 like improvements to a file browser no one wants and needs, or yet anot
64 bit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:64 bit? (Score:2)
Re:64 bit? (Score:2)
Short answer: not really.
Slightly longer: even G3 class chips still do pretty well under
Re:Photoshop CS2 is a 32-bit application. (Score:2)
However, since Apple hasn't announced any real 100% 64-bit OS plans, it's unclear whether the Mac versions will be 64-bit or not.
time for the siren (Score:2)
Excellent. I just read that someone's brother's coworker's cousin's friend of a friend of an Anonymous Coward posting on Slashdot has *** CONFIRMED *** this new Mac. I'm phoning Drudge.
No Surprises Here! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the bright side, if Adobe keeps up the status quo on Creative Suite 3 then we will see all of the Apps that ship in Creative Suite, ship together. Acrobat 5 was horrible on Mac OS X, the Acrobat application ran natively in OS X, but the distiller ran in Classic and suffered severe performance penalties as a result. Hopefully all of the apps tranistioning around the same time will leave a better taste in their customers mouths.
I am glad to see them attempting to show off their xCode developemtn prowess by delivering the LightRoom beta earlier than their other software packages.
Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gun (Score:3, Insightful)
So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? The swarms of iPod owners that own Apple products for reasons of fashion more than functionality? It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.
But they sorta had to release the Intel products so soon, though didn't they? All the hardcore Apple guys I knew said they wouldn't be buying any new stuff until the transition to Intel. Oh well...
Re:Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gu (Score:2)
Except the Apple Pro applications (Final Cut, DVD Studio, Motion, Logic, Shake, Soundtrack etc. They are going to be released as Universal in Feb / March [apple.com]
For photographers some good viability (Score:2)
You seem to be extrapolating Adobe products as being the only things anyone uses.
Other people have mentioned the other Pro apps that will be universal in March. But one app that will help a specific group of professional users is Aperture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gu (Score:2)
Re:Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gu (Score:3, Insightful)
So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? ...It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.
You mean somebody still believes the hype that Apple users are mostly graphic artists these days? I know a lot of people including a few who are artists that use macs. Most mac users I know, however, are programmers and scientists. Another large number are non-power users who basically use the Web, e-mail, and some word processing
Re:Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gu (Score:2)
Well, i'm buying one for one.
Why?
Because it's a computer i can use at home for "home use" type stuff without worrying about dealing with the shit you have to deal with running windows.
Plus, it's just plain nice to sit on a desk by i
Re:Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gu (Score:2)
WWMMHD? (Score:2)
You really have to wonder whether they would've decided to update their apps sooner. Though given that Intel Macs for developers have been available for at least 6 months, maybe they weren't far enough along on the transition at the time of the merger.
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is it, Chizen? (Score:2)
or will 2007 be "about time" when we'll see some Adobe products written to take advantage of the computers YOU SNARKLY demanded from Jobs with your little jab at him at WWDC last year?
I was ready to understand the difficulty in the undertaking - but you guys were first to Mac OS X, and now, you're going to be stupid late to Intel, despite your grumblings that Apple wasn't there all along... and i was even ready to forget that we saw Wolfr
Does it actually say 2007 anywhere? (Score:2)
Of course, that's only their "typical" release schedule. If there are other factors in play (like, for example, new Pro Macs being released), they might very well do an atypical release schedule for CS3.
FrameMaker (Score:2)
This isn't too surprising. Don't forget that they outright dropped FrameMaker for Mac.
This was after they claimed that the market for it had shrunk. This was after they had released a non OS X native version about a year after the release of OS X. How many Mac users do you think were waiting for the OS X native version to upgrade?
I think the only chance of us seeing a true OS X version of FrameMaker is if some other company out there comes out with something that's actually competitive with it...
Quit yer whining! (Score:5, Informative)
Instead what I hear are a buncha wannebe-geeks who went out 'n bought the newest and shiniest and are now whining because they chose to ignore what anyone with half a clue woulda and most likely did tell 'em. You shelled out over a grand for a new product and couldn't be bothered to find out if the software you want to run on it actually would anytime soon.
Get the hell off /., I'm sure there's some support chat group out there for you on AOL somewhere. Try keyword "12:00-Flasher"
Frankly I just hope there is someone out there clubbing you monkeys over the head with instructions on how to use a contraceptive.
Intel Transition Tougher Than Most May Realize (Score:5, Interesting)
Adobe's plugin Software Development Kits (SDKs) are based on C++ object models, which will mean that plugins and their host applications will need to be built with the same tools for everything to work. To move on, I think Adobe is going to have to move all their products and SDKs to XCode (gcc), and though I do not work for Adobe, I would wager that it will be a fairly tough job. IMO, Q2 or Q3 2007 seems a fairly realistic goal.
The problems the Intel transition will pose for both Adobe and the third-party plugin developers will be daunting. Quark and its associates have similar troubles, but I have personally seen some decent progress on the Quark side, though I think NDA prevents me from saying anything specific. Though I have seen little progress from Adobe as yet, I am confident they will deliver.
Adobe has a lot of work ahead of them, so I would encourage users of Adobe's creative apps to be patient, and realize how much work Adobe has ahead of them and that it involves more than just moving the applications to Intel. SDKs often offer as many if not more challenges than their host applications. I will part with a criticism: Everybody has known that CodeWarrior is dead for a long time. I think Adobe should have started putting more resources into jumping ship right when the writing went on the wall. Now we are all going to have to wait a while because Adobe was so shiftless about getting off the dead branch.
Re:Intel Transition Tougher Than Most May Realize (Score:2)
Re:Intel Transition Tougher Than Most May Realize (Score:3, Informative)
Crossover Office? (Score:2)
Does Adobe allow you to migrate your Photoshop license from Windows to Mac?
Re:Crossover Office? (Score:2)
I'd rather wait for a new version than using a windows-ish version of Photoshop. The GUIs too fucked up for me to even consider bothering with it.
score one for MacGIMP (Score:2)
Re:score one for MacGIMP (Score:2)
Oh, and it's completely free. No dubious paid downloads costing $29.95 or anything.
Re:score one for MacGIMP (Score:2)
Re:score one for MacGIMP (Score:3, Informative)
Re:score one for MacGIMP (Score:3, Informative)
Now there is no way to input that using just a keyboard layout, so it is not a matter of
I wonder how companies make these funny decisions (Score:2)
Re:Planned obsolescence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not really, no (Score:2)
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:2, Informative)
Mozilla/Firefox: TargetAlert [bolinfest.com].
CSS3 compliant browser: a[href$=".pdf"]:after {content: "[PDF]"; font-size:smaller} in your user style sheet. Modify as needed for other types of "annoying" links.
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:3, Informative)
Or uninstall the Acrobat plug-in from your browser, so the browser will ask you whether you want to open the PDF, download it, or cancel.
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:2)
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:5, Funny)
"According to a pdf on Adobe's website..."
not give it away? I thought it was quite obvious. But I guess complaining is easier than reading.
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but when I look at the status bar to see what the link is (and I've gotten to the point where I rarely click on a link without doing that, just in case), I can usually tell if the file is a PDF. Those are the ones that h
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:2)
Re:Please Label PDF links! (Score:2)
Re:Acrobat Reader??? (Score:2)
Re:Acrobat Reader??? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php#/ [foxitsoftware.com]
Reviewed at
http://www.download.com/Foxit-PDF-Reader/3640-2079 _4-10470005.html?v=1/ [download.com]
Downside : won't work in a Tab in Firefox. Then again, Acrobat doesn't always like to play properly with Firefox also.
http://www.lifehacker.com/software//download-of-th e-day-foxit-pdf-reader-109741.php/ [lifehacker.com]
Also
http://www.visagesoft.com/products/pdfreader/ [visagesoft.com]
Next step : Doing something like this that is integrated with the browser. It's jus