Apple Responds to Adobe

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."

Comments

Wow!

[momerath2003]

***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!

[IAmATuringMachine!]

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

Honest question

[mcgroarty]

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?

Re:Honest question

[Steve Cowan]

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.

New performance measure

[verloren]

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

Re:New performance measure

[JDWTopGuy]

11 - Host a site linked from a Slashdot.org article without getting slashdotted

The trouble is, x86s really are faster

[ebcdic]

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.

Re:The trouble is, x86s really are faster

[Llywelyn]

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

[dhall]

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.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[esome]

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

An Honest Answer

[HotButteredHampster]

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.

Well hell...

[PrimeWaveZ]

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...

[macrom]

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.

Excess

[lux55]

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.

equality?

[mbbac]

Why was the prior article on this displayed on the front page, but this one only shows up under Apple?

Re:equality?

[DansnBear]

I agree. Adobe had their spotlight on the front page for bashing Apple. It even got about 842 comments. Now this response to it is hidden on the Apple page of Slashdot. This seems like a retraction a newspaper had to print on a cover story, and put it on the 17th page where no one will see it.

Re:equality?

[mbbac]

That was the exact analogy I had in mind when writing my original post!

You'd think that Slashdot would want to present both sides evenly.

Re:who the fuck cares?

[naelurec]

Hmm.. I use to do billboard printing/design work. First off, Photoshop has a 2GB-3.5GB size limit. As far as the printing process is concerned, older large format printers could only do between 20dpi-70dpi ... using uncompressed TIFF CMYK files for output, on a standard 20'x50' billboard, this would yield a file around 219MB - 1GB+ per layer. Granted, given the viewing distance factor of a billboard, these graphics would generally be printed at only 10dpi yielding an effective TIFF size of 54MB. However, given the current level of technology in this segment of the printing market, most (if not all) large format printers will now use Postscript files as input, so much of the design is done like traditional desktop publishing (quark, indesign, illustrator) and then rasterized on usualy a multiprocessor PC-based RIP (raster image processor). In anycase, getting back to the original poster .. just because graphic houses are currently using Macs is not a representation of them being faster. It is simply a case of being what they have used for years. Many places that I do consulting work for (as well as where I previously worked) offload all of their heavy processing requirements to the fastest systems they can find, Mac or PC .. lately they have been buying PCs ..

Yet another blind Cocoa zealot...

[Millennium]

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 Carbon app which actually uses OSX technologies can be not just every bit as fast as a Cocoa app, but even somewhat faster if it's done right.

Cocoa is good. Carbon can be good, though it does have some Bad Stuff that, regrettably, many porting jobs use. But an app is no better simply by virtue of being written in Cocoa or Carbon.

If you want proof of this, simply look at the fact that Apple is slowly re-implementing Cocoa on top of Carbon. Some of this work is already complete and is a part of Jaguar; more is coming. When it is finished, Cocoa will be little more than a layer of abstraction on top of Carbon. How can one be intrinsically better than the other, when this is possible?

I don't care about speed alone

[47PHA60]

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.

Re:I don't care about speed alone

[pressman]

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 if they're serious about video editing for broadcast or for film I recommend FCP on the Mac or Avid on the PC side. Premiere is just too slow and inflexible for harcore, deadline intensive efiting. Plus, exporting an EDL usually results in a total system crash!

To really sell people on FCP I just show them how FCP treats and handles a leyered Photoshop file and they just go nuts... and usually end up signing up for my next FCP class!

Re:The next PPC

[Gropo]

How about a memory controller right in the CPU?

Speculation of a 970 on-die controller exists from the most erudite of tech news sources. We'll hopefully have better insight on the matter when he finishes/publishes Part 2 of his 970 breakdown article.

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

Can do... Apple is a member of the HyperTransport Consortium, and adding 2+2 suggests an equivalent-if-not-HT-proper I/O bus on the speculated 970 Apple MoBos.

The 970 won't be the only 64-bit consumer chip on the market this October.

True enough. I think the poignant argument is that Apple holds all the marbles in the platform arena, leading us to suspect quicker adoption of 64-bit precision on the OS level and API's. It's entirely plausible that if Apple is truly behind the 970, Panther will launch concurrent support for +4Gb memory addresses and 'double' integer strings. Microsoft is still playing the 'shy southern belle' in terms of outlining support for AAx86-64. Sure, the linux camp is already on it, but to be fair you did say "64-bit consumer chip"...

Not surprising in any way

[FredFnord]

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

Re:Not surprising in any way

[pressman]

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.

Re:Gimp

[Cheesewhiz]

Look, as a graphics professional, I have to tell you, GIMP is a nice idea, but is hardly a pro tool. This is not because of any lack of features, but because the work flow of it is slow, and clunky.

Photoshop is the bread and butter of the graphics industry. Unless you essentially duplicate the interface and workflow of Photoshop in GIMP, GIMP will have a puny fraction of a percentage point of the pro graphics market.

If you're aiming to replace Photoshop for pro users, than duplicate it in open source and get it over with. If, on the other hand, you're trying to provide a free, sensible alternative for the other 99.99% of the world that aren't graphics pros, you've got a shot with doing things your own way.

But even then, GIMP can't yet hold a candle to Photoshop in terms of workflow, or feel. I wish it did...I'm as tired of paying $500 for photoshop as the next guy, but Photoshop pays for itself eventually because of its quality, and low-irritation factor. It just works.

Re:Gimp

[Gropo]

Just becase GIMP has a 'different' interface to Photoshop doesn't mean that it's automatically 'worse'.

Actually, I'd argue that that is the ultimate reason the interface is 'worse'. The reason being, it deviates so radically from Illustrator and InDesign that the streamlined psychological effect of switching between the "Trio of Might" all day long completely vanishes.

Photoshop is merely Adobe's idea of what a software package should look like - and frankly most Adobe tools have a *hideous* user interface (just look at Acrobat Reader!).

While You're entirely entitled to your opinion on this matter, I respectfully disagree (Acrobat Reader being an exception). Having been an intensive Adobe design suite user for the past 7 years, and having somewhat extensively demoed much of the 'competition's' offerings, I find Adobe's interface design to be the most thorough and ubiquitous in the design suite industry (if not the entire software industry).

I think a lot of graphic designers have grown up on Photoshop and maybe have forgotten how hard it was to learn how to use Photoshop properly and get use to it.

Any application, whether GUI-based or CLI-based, requires a certain period of familiarization. We need to look at conditions that alleviate the need to learn or re-learn methods of achieving common functionality between both OS-wide abstractions and abstractions found within other applications. Apple has covered a good deal of this ground with a wide palate of standardized command-key functions that Adobe has strived to adhere to for many years. To be fair, Macromedia and Corel have also strived to adhere to these standards; in my opinion, not quite as thoroughly as Adobe.

If GIMP could be rearranged to sufficiently integrate with an Adobe (or perhaps Macromedia, QuarkXPress) workflow, eliminate the perceptible "clunkiness", and add crucial functionalities found in PS (CMYK, Adjustment Layers) then maybe GIMP will find some adoption within design ranks. I am by no means holding my breath.

...I *really* wouldn't want GIMP to try and duplicate Photoshop's interface! It may be 'established' but, as I've said, I think it's a bit of a disaster from a Humane Interface POV.

I'd really like you to qualify that argument with some examples. If you don't have the time/effort to list them, don't sweat it.

I do think however, that the lack of a Mac OS X Aqua port is slowing it's slow adoption rate amoung established professionals.

I would tend to agree, assuming by "Aqua port" you mean a true integration with and adherence to Apple's HIG. Simply slapping a Quartz/Aqua face on the standard functions/layout/menu trees won't do a damned thing in that regard.

Re:Gimp

[pressman]

In the professional graphic design world, there are only a handfull of people that use the GIMP. It's a beast to work with because it doesn't adhere to any of the User Interface guidelines that designers are used to. It is definitely a Freeware UNIX App?! It has the potential to be very powerful, but it suffers from the "UI's are for sissies, real users use a CLI" mindset.

learning the interface of any Adobe app is pretty damned easy. Learning the tool sets is quite another matter. Photoshop and Illustrator are not for mom and pop who want to design a family newsletter. They are geared toward working professionals in the graphic arts, web design and film/video indutries. People who are trained to learn and use software effectively. People who, in general, don't have the time or energy to spend fussing about with a free program whose capabilities don't even come close to matching that of Photoshop yet. I know, I've been using Photoshop for 9 years and I've spent about a year studying The GIMP and basically, it's a productivity nightmare. It will remain a novelty for some time until someone or some group decides to really dig in and fix the app's interface and start putting in some of the features that present day users of Photoshop now EXPECT of an image editor. Live, editable type layers. CMYK and Spot Color support, ColorSynch support. Slicing and rolloover capabilties from and easy to use palette. PostScript Level three layer and transparency effects. The list goes on and on and on.

I hope GIMP development keeps advancing because that will keep Adobe on their toes. Maybe Apple will pull another Safari and make an image editing app based off of the GIMP codebase and REALLY give Adobe a run for their money.

Sorry to say it, but GIMP ain't ready for prime time production use yet and anyone who says it's in wide use commercially is out of their mind. It simply isn't true. They don't teach the GIMP at art & design schools where the new generations gain their application and design experience and designers are mostly a non-technical bunch. The GIMP is still an app for technically minded folks.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/07 64 53694X/qid=1048869038/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-397569 9-8879107?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Now if you read that book cover to cover and STILL insist that the GIMP is as full featured and intuitive as Photoshop I will have to call the funny farm on you.

Re:Gimp

[pressman]

Look at Macromedia. The ape Adobe's interface at every chance they get. Good software with an interface consistent to what the market expects makes MM a viable competitor to Adobe. I'm still pretty firmly in the Adobe camp, but Dreamweaver made me switch from GoLive. A fmailiar interface on a superior product. It can happen.

Years ago I gave X-Res and Corel Photopaint their day in the sun, but you know what? They were just garbage compared to Photoshop. I tried Painter for a while. A very powerful, expressive program, but way too palette heavy, even by Adobe standards. I never really grasped the program, but many people with traditional media backgrounds did and they saw it as a complement to Photoshop rather than as a competitor. It lives in on to this day in pretty much the same fashion... though having gone through like 8 owners.... one of which was Corel. Shudder.

So an underdog can steal the crown, but that underdog had better have some mad skills. The GIMP isn't even close to being there. It's the genius, harelipped, buck toothed uncle of the digital imaging world that all the pretty people in the family don't deign to talk to. Clean up the interface and put in the features and capabilities that the design market wants and duke it out that way.

Claiming that The GIMP is ready to topple the Photoshop crown right now on Slashdot is just ludicrous. The app has potential, but it needs to grow up and mature a great deal before taking on the throne.

Absolutely true, and completely irrelevant

[FredFnord]

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

Re:Gimp

[pressman]

I disagree, it's used by my many graphics professionals, especially 'film gimp', it's very much a pro tool - for example it can handle file sizes much larger than Photoshop.

Aha! Film Gimp and GIMP serve two totally different purposes. Video files are WAY MORE HUGE than simple still image files. I can see where the scriptability and flexibility of Film GIMP can come in very handy as a tool in film and video post-production. Used in tandem with other post production tools, a very powerful combination can be made.

However, the GIMP as a stand alone productivity tool in a commercial graphic design environment just isn't up to snuff yet as far as featrues and usability go.

Re:Gimp

[shylock0]

I'm a consultant who does a lot of work with digital media, content creation, and professional design/art companies.

Please, as a response to this post, let me know of one or two graphics professionals (web sites, please) which I can verify use GIMP (not film gimp, which is completely different (and has undergone a name change), but GIMP).

The truth of the matter is, professionals -- true professionals, people who make their living sitting in front of a computer using photo and graphics tools for 4-8 hours a day -- all use Photoshop. It has nothing to do with interface or learning curve. It has to do with color management.

People who make arguments about GIMP and Photoshop and don't mention color management simply don't know what they are talking about. Color management is nearly everything to graphics professionals, and, quite simply, the Mac and Adobe Software does it better than anything else -- light-years ahead of GIMP. That's why many graphics pros use Macs, even *if* PCs are faster. Speed is far less important than output. Color management is everything.

We use GIMP quite a bit in our office (we also use photoshop). It's free, it's fast, and we can get it to run on the four platforms we use. But we can't recommend it as a solution to our customers. It's just not good enough.