Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Universal Binaries... in 2007
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."
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.
- Apple has ALWAYS made it clear their move to Intel would be in stages.
- Apple has ALWAYS said it would be done from their lower-end products to their upper-end.
- The iMac is Apple's entry-level product.
- Therefore the iMac being iNtelicized first is in line with Apple's announced plans.
- With the iMac being Apple's entry-level consumer product it doesn't have a large professional user base.
- Therefore professionals, who have large investments in hardware and software, are unlikely to be affected by the Intel transition until it reaches the products they use: The Professional-level Macs like the G5 line.
- So Adobe not shipping Universal Binary products for their professional level until the professional grade hardware is ready is surprising to who?
Seriously, if you're appalled that Adobe et al aren't shipping Universal Binaries right away only means you haven't been paying attention. If you really are a professional photographer or someone who honestly depends on these type products you'd have to have been comatose the past year not to be well aware of all of this.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.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
The above reply seems to confuse the issues of ABI (which is what I was talking about) and code container format (which your reply seemed to be talking about). When C++ is used for loadable code libraries, getting your tools and interfaces set up right is a little more tricky. Changing the capabilities of the SDK without breaking compatibility is even more tricky. Where I was going to go was that with Objective-C, you do not have the same problem, but I didn't even start because Adobe probably can't do that, as they are cross-platform SDKs. :)
Perhaps you missed the point of why I would criticize Adobe for using CodeWarrior. It has nothing to do with the container format. When Adobe released Creative Suite 2 last year, they moved from CFM to Mach-O, but they were still using the same old tool... CodeWarrrior (a bad tool for creating native Mac OS X apps, IMO). Had they moved back then, we would probably have Intel builds of Creative Suite in short order.
I am sure there were good reasons for Adobe to have done things this way, but... Now not only will we have to move our plugins to XCode, but we will also have to move them to Intel afterwards, and we can't do diddly until we get their new SDKs. Foo!