Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop for OS X
MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"
I pretty sure they'll sell quite some more OS X packages now. I know many people have been waiting to upgrade from 9.x and Photoshop has been the main reason.
Ciryon
It's been said a hundred times. The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa, which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS. Some years ago Photoshop (3.0) was ported to Irix using a MacOS->motif toolkin. It sucked ass. You won't see any OS X app running on *ix/X anytime soon.
just b/c it's ported to os x, doesn't mean you can automatically port it to linux, or any other variant. photoshop 7 will be run on top of aqua, which in turn runs on top of darwin, among other things. apple has a great explination on their http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/ os x site. in neat aquazied-graphics even.
porting photoshop 7 to linux/KDE/ect would be about as easy as porting age of empires w/o wine. did i miss anything? i hope that clears up alot of porting questions
moox. for a new generation.
MacCentral is running a much more in-depth article, complete with screenshots you can actually see. Also included are a hands-on review and some intelligent commentary missing from the very PC-centric C|Net.
My other computer is your Windows box
will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"
I bet you'll see a press release from Macromedia soon, but that'll be it for a while. They're behind schedule releasing Dreamweaver 5 and Ultradev 5, which is rumored to support dot-Net, and they've gotten to the point where they're just putting out open-ended Microsoft-style vaporware press releases instead.
Not to disrespect Mac folks, but I bet the profit involved in putting out Ultradev 5 with dot-Net authoring will result in a lot more sales than Dreamweaver in native OSX, but of course, that's just my betting. Then again, maybe this is the reason DW/UD5 is so behind schedule - maybe they're trying to release everything at once, including native OSX support and dot-Net authoring. I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't accept anything less when this thing finally comes out.
What's your damage, Heather?
Adobe's market is HUGE in the apple section, the Wintel market for their products pales in comparison. Practically every publishing shop in the world runs on Apple hardware using Adobe and Quark apps. So yes they're in a hurry. It's their biggest market.
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
> I am pretty sure GNUStep is WAY out of date with Cocoa. I don't think it would be an easy task to update it either.
No, GNUstep actually follows the Cocoa API very closely. One of its goals is easy porting of Cocoa and GNUstep apps.
Looks like the threading model and the new disk drivers have made a huge difference.. And of course better memory management
Here's a snippet from another BB.
having played with PS betas, I'm pretty confident in saying that Adobe Photoshop 7 for OSX is a Carbon application.
All this means is that its linked to the Carbonlib (think share library)
rather than the Cocoa frameworks.
They're both native, its just that Cocoa apps get more features for free from the OS, which means they implement more of the standard OSX features.
Carbon apps can implement just as many of those features... but tend not to because it takes a lot of work to implement them (for instance, BBEdit supports the Services menu)
Photoshop will probably implement a lot of the Cocoa features even though its a Carbon app, simply because Adobe has the resources to do this (Just like Microsoft)
Another serious difference is that Cocoa can only currently be targetted via Objective C (ObjC++ too), Java and AppleScript (this is another major reason to use Carbon for Photoshop.
And thats about it.
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
You cannot "run" them directly from the Terminal, but there are a few tricks that you can use to control them from the Terminal a little less directly. As was mentioned above you can use the 'open' command to launch a GUI app. Beyond that if the app is scriptable to do what you want you can use 'osascript' and its brethren to execute AppleScript commands for the command line (making it possible to use shell/Perl scripts to automate functions of GUI apps). 'apropos osa' will find you all the relevant commands, which have man pages. Photoshop in the past was very scriptable, so as long as they have maintained this, you should be able to write shell and perl scripts that take advantage of this, or fire off oneliners in the shell. Since you are using a shell command to execute an applescript it might be a little more complicated in a oneliner than just selecting something from a menu or clicking a button or two. But automating a task in a script could be more worthwhile since you can perform repetitive tasks.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
Pantone is one of the things Gimp will NEVER have. Pantone is a patented technology and requires the Gimp community to pay them $$$ if they want to implement it.
1. Live CMYK editing (essential for real-world print publishing)
2. Font handling well beyond anything available within XFree86
3. Tight integration with tools like Illustrator (e.g. being able to specify vector masks using Illustrator's sophisticated Bezier tools and use them directly in Photoshop) and inDesign.
4. Peerless Postscript/PDF integration (i.e. produce Postscript that will actually rip on a professional imagesetter and produce usable output on the first try, instead of wasting hundreds/thousands of bucks on trial and error while your client stands around angrily looking at their watch)
5. Best of breed built-in algorithms for things like scaling, color correction, etc.
6. Polish.
I've used the Gimp, and I'm impressed by what it can do, but in a past life I also worked in a graphic arts shop, and I cannot stress enough the importance of some of the above items (particularly 1 and 4) in real-world paying applications.
If all you're doing is touching up vacation snaps, then Photoshop's big pricetag probably isn't worth it to you, but if you're trying to make a living pushing pixels, no other app comes close, and the Gimp (as cool as it is) isn't even in the ballpark.
Anyway... I'll probably end up with Photoshop (I've been using it since Version 2.5). But there are options for OS X. (And I'm sorry, but GIMP is not an option for professional photo editing... It's a step above most graphics software, but it's not Photoshop or TIFFany. (I actually think people who use and like GIMP on OS X should really download TIFFany3 Trial, I think they'll be pleasantly supprised).
--- Nothing To See Here ---
There was a post on the discuss-gnustep@gnu.org m,ailinglist about such a project not long ago. I think he was going to call it "Graphite".
as the poster remarked in his reply to you, previous to mine here, Aqua and Quartz are two different animals...
/.
Mousing? ha! MouseZoom, freeware. Great.
Do not confuse yourself by assuming that i am conceding the mouse action in OS X is not up to snuff, it is. But Mousezoom is for freaks like myself who want ridiculous mouse speeds, and don't care to spend any time cooking up their own solutions when they could be doing something more important like using their comps to pay the rent or posting at
heh.
just another reason to appreciate OS X, there are so many people making great little apps and tweaks for it...
"lest we forget, the world is so much more than black and white, there are infinite shades of grey" (attribution: me)
A bit off-topic, but it was mentioned in the original post... I've heard from an insider that Macromedia will be releasing the next version of Flash in about a month, possibly shortly after Macworld Tokyo. Of course, there are numerous tweaks, but it appears the main draws are that it will be Mac OS X native and scripting will be heavily improved. And it won't be called Flash 6, but rather Flash MX.
For those that aren't aware, both Flash MX and Fireworks MX are looming large on the horizon. Some of the rumore sites have it right, as I have them myself. :)
Well, basic CMYK support would be useful. A history palette, non-destructive layer effects, vector text and layers, basic knockout features. Well, hell, there's a lot that Photoshop can do that the GIMP can't. Plus, PS has a very well thought out and useful interface.
The GIMP is a pretty decent application and you can't beat the price, but it still has a long way to go before it becomes a standard part of a professional graphic artist's tool box.
Pooty tweet
A large portion of this is Acrobat (not Reader, full app) to government agencies and bundleware with PC scanners.
So really, the issue is porting the in-house GUI framework. And from my experiences with porting stuff to OS X, they're probably either using carbon or cocoa, both of which are proprietary Apple APIs.
Actually, the Cocoa source is closed and proprietary but the API is open to the extent where you can freely implement your own version of it. This is where GNUStep comes from.
dude, you are so misinformed (or you're trolling, in which case you are misinforming others):
So, basically what I am saying is that there are still a lot of people scanning from transparencies, and that some really good retouching tools (plus being able to deal with large files) are worth the price of Photoshop.
If all you ever have to deal with are teeny RGB images targeted to the web, by all means, use the GIMP... it'll get the job done. But if you ever have a need to edit a 75Mb CMYK image (a 2 page 8/-1/2x11 full bleed spread at 150 line screen), and you'll get fired (or not get another contract from the same people) if the color is off or if there is a huge scratch right through the middle of the model's face, then $150 for a Photoshop upgrade, or even $600 for the full version of Photoshop, starts to look quite reasonable.
This is just my guess as a long time Mac developer. It is likely that Photoshop contained lots of 68k assembly code that had to be rewritten for PPC. Photoshop was written back when you had to squeeze every bit of processing power out of the Mac. While this could work on Mac OS 9 and earlier (Mac OS 9 has a great 68k emulator), this needed to be changed for OS X.
You are wrong about the APIs. The vast majority of APIs still exist in Carbon. It is true there are preferred APIs (e.g Event Handling) that are new. The old APIs are at least 80% intact and native to OS X. This is the whole purpose to Carbon.
Adopting the new event model and porting 68k assembly code would have taken some time in an application as complex as Photoshop.