No whine here; after the firewire noise I experienced on my G5 (did you even TEST that, Apple?), this is a major improvement.
Too f'ing hot.
Screen == gorgeous, though the edge discoloration from some angles it disappointing. But hey, Frodo's usually in the center of the screen, right?
For all the claims of superlative performance, I still see PUH-LENTY of my good friend the beachball. Of course, I'm often running two command line builds, XCode, Mail, Safari, FileMaker, Remote Desktop Connection (yes, I _could_ run WinXP on the MBPro, but why waste the drive space and sully the experience?), BBEdit, Perforce visual client, OmniOutliner (kinklessGTD rocks!), and maybe a couple others as need arises.
Still, the performance is perceptibly better than my G5 2 x 2.0 Ghz 3gig ram machine.
I work (code, manage) on several distributed teams. Our saving grace is a shared standard of coding conduct.
Everyone (EVERYONE) is held to the standards, regardless of whether they're in India, or whether they wrote the guidelines.
Secondary lesson: Create complete guidelines, by which you're willing to live or die.
Since you own plenty of Apple software (sorry, I should have specified Pro), you've received at least one hype mail for each one, regardless of whether you got it from FC Studio or individually. Since you own a mac, you received another mailing (with links to online puff pieces, as mentioned in the review).
Oh, to be so naive as to believe press hype is free. Enjoy!
Do you subscribe to any digital photography mailing lists or magazines? Memberships to any Apple or photography related websites? Own (not have, but own) any other Apple software?
I doubt it, based upon your sweeping assertion.
TV ads, to reach digital photographers? Rather a tight niche for ads during prime time, wouldn't you say? I don't know about your region, but there are no digital photography radio stations in my area. Perhaps ClearChannel should look into that. Newspapers? Didn't people read those back in the 20th century? Not where digital photographers get the bulk of their product news, I'll wager.
The hype in the digital imaging press surrounding Aperture has been set to 11 since the IBC tradeshow in Amsterdam, in September.
Count yourself lucky that you've missed it, so far.
While all 1.0 software falls short of users' and developers' hopes, not every 1.0 release comes with a kajillion-dollar marketing effort.
While I agree there seems to be a conceit (as in preconception, not as in snobbery) to the review, I think s/he's responding to the hubris and arrogance of Apple's ad blitz roll-out of a program that, while potentially interesting, isn't ready.
More curious: what did they gain by depriving their developers of the time between announce and Macworld? Certainly, they did enough in 2005 to warrant delaying launch until they'd solved at least a few of the issues brought up in the review.
Hopefully this will help more users, even the Jobs-ian faithful, see behind the curtain. Though I'm a mac guy myself, I understand and accept that Apple is willing to say anything to sell more boxen.
It's not for large image size; it's a problem with libpng's processing eTRNS structures, used to handle transparency.
The folks at libpng fixed the problem months (a year?) ago; I rolled the fix into our application's PNG handling with nary a hiccup.
Oh, and to save anyone else dealing with PNGs the weight gain and hair loss I experienced, there is NO support for pre-multiplied alpha channels in the library. Sigh.
Photoshop is $700 because it takes a small army of engineers and QA to produce it.
Not everyone needs Photoshop; Paint Shop Pro may work just fine for you.
Not everyone needs a humvee (a real one, not the pretentious yuppie wagons you see on the road); but when you _do_ need one, a jeep just won't do.
What's insufficient about the SDK? I wrote a couple filters for yucks, years ago, and found the process pretty straightforward.
After Effects SDK is more fun, though.
Not sure what Eclipse does, but Adobe After Effects and Photoshop (two products with lively third-party plug-in communities) don't increase their memory footprint substantially, even if the user has a kajillion plug-ins installed.
The plug-ins are scanned at launch for a plug-in property list (PiPL) resource, describing the plug-in's name (for building menus) and basic behavior. They're only loaded and executed when the user applies them.
Now if only Acrobloat shared AE and Photoshop's plug-in architecture, maybe it wouldn't need 327mb of virtual memory while it had no files open.
What does a Justice Department investigation of a smart Russian guy have to do with Photoshop? Linux fanboy propaganda notwithstanding, it was the GUBMINT, not Adobe, that launched the investigation.
From your website, it looks like you know a thing or two about digital photography. I'm sure, on those other forums, you've heard from people who've been waiting desperately for one or more of the newly added features.
Not a pro? Then Photoshop Elements will do the trick, and save you a pile of $$$. Heck, if you don't _like_ interfaces designed by UI designers, you might even try the GIMP.
Have you ever posted to Adobe's support forums? The Photoshop and After Effects engineering teams actually answer questions and help troubleshoot. That doesn't seem too insulated from consumer backlash.
Slashdot Mirror
No whine here; after the firewire noise I experienced on my G5 (did you even TEST that, Apple?), this is a major improvement.
Too f'ing hot.
Screen == gorgeous, though the edge discoloration from some angles it disappointing. But hey, Frodo's usually in the center of the screen, right?
For all the claims of superlative performance, I still see PUH-LENTY of my good friend the beachball. Of course, I'm often running two command line builds, XCode, Mail, Safari, FileMaker, Remote Desktop Connection (yes, I _could_ run WinXP on the MBPro, but why waste the drive space and sully the experience?), BBEdit, Perforce visual client, OmniOutliner (kinklessGTD rocks!), and maybe a couple others as need arises.
Still, the performance is perceptibly better than my G5 2 x 2.0 Ghz 3gig ram machine.
If they wrote the software, and want to limit their own market, ... so?
Open source advocates: get over it.
Product marketing realists: get over it.
It happened. Move on.
I work (code, manage) on several distributed teams. Our saving grace is a shared standard of coding conduct. Everyone (EVERYONE) is held to the standards, regardless of whether they're in India, or whether they wrote the guidelines. Secondary lesson: Create complete guidelines, by which you're willing to live or die.
Not on your account. I prefer to address people who read something, before they react to it.
One more time: Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance!
Wow, you spend a lot of time (and, presumably, stomach acid) convincing yourself that you're right. I hope it's worth it to you.
Those of us involved with digital imaging have seen quite a bit of Aperture hype for months. Apparently, you haven't. Great.
Party on, Wayne!
And enjoy your premature certainty!
You don't see it != It doesn't exist.
Specific evidence? Given, above. Ignored (by you), above.
Like I've said before twice, enjoy your assumption that you're right!
Mail? What is this $0.37 technology you speak of?
Sorry, I meant e-mail.
Well, enjoy your continuing insistence upon being right, despite specific evidence to the contrary.
Since you own plenty of Apple software (sorry, I should have specified Pro), you've received at least one hype mail for each one, regardless of whether you got it from FC Studio or individually. Since you own a mac, you received another mailing (with links to online puff pieces, as mentioned in the review).
Oh, to be so naive as to believe press hype is free. Enjoy!
My, that's hilarious.
Do you subscribe to any digital photography mailing lists or magazines? Memberships to any Apple or photography related websites? Own (not have, but own) any other Apple software?
I doubt it, based upon your sweeping assertion.
TV ads, to reach digital photographers? Rather a tight niche for ads during prime time, wouldn't you say? I don't know about your region, but there are no digital photography radio stations in my area. Perhaps ClearChannel should look into that. Newspapers? Didn't people read those back in the 20th century? Not where digital photographers get the bulk of their product news, I'll wager.
The hype in the digital imaging press surrounding Aperture has been set to 11 since the IBC tradeshow in Amsterdam, in September.
Count yourself lucky that you've missed it, so far.
While all 1.0 software falls short of users' and developers' hopes, not every 1.0 release comes with a kajillion-dollar marketing effort. While I agree there seems to be a conceit (as in preconception, not as in snobbery) to the review, I think s/he's responding to the hubris and arrogance of Apple's ad blitz roll-out of a program that, while potentially interesting, isn't ready. More curious: what did they gain by depriving their developers of the time between announce and Macworld? Certainly, they did enough in 2005 to warrant delaying launch until they'd solved at least a few of the issues brought up in the review. Hopefully this will help more users, even the Jobs-ian faithful, see behind the curtain. Though I'm a mac guy myself, I understand and accept that Apple is willing to say anything to sell more boxen.
Very worky. http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 22715&page=10
So, YOUR source code (and comments) would be ready for public viewing with zero scrubbing?
I manage several SDKs, and among the first things I do before a release is run a 'potty-mouth' search, and eliminate the overly-strident comments.
Folks, they're called "people skills". Q: How do you tell the extroverted engineer? A: He looks at OTHER people's shoes when he talks.
It's not for large image size; it's a problem with libpng's processing eTRNS structures, used to handle transparency.
The folks at libpng fixed the problem months (a year?) ago; I rolled the fix into our application's PNG handling with nary a hiccup.
Oh, and to save anyone else dealing with PNGs the weight gain and hair loss I experienced, there is NO support for pre-multiplied alpha channels in the library. Sigh.
Photoshop is $700 because it takes a small army of engineers and QA to produce it. Not everyone needs Photoshop; Paint Shop Pro may work just fine for you. Not everyone needs a humvee (a real one, not the pretentious yuppie wagons you see on the road); but when you _do_ need one, a jeep just won't do.
What's insufficient about the SDK? I wrote a couple filters for yucks, years ago, and found the process pretty straightforward. After Effects SDK is more fun, though.
Not sure what Eclipse does, but Adobe After Effects and Photoshop (two products with lively third-party plug-in communities) don't increase their memory footprint substantially, even if the user has a kajillion plug-ins installed.
The plug-ins are scanned at launch for a plug-in property list (PiPL) resource, describing the plug-in's name (for building menus) and basic behavior. They're only loaded and executed when the user applies them.
Now if only Acrobloat shared AE and Photoshop's plug-in architecture, maybe it wouldn't need 327mb of virtual memory while it had no files open.
What does a Justice Department investigation of a smart Russian guy have to do with Photoshop? Linux fanboy propaganda notwithstanding, it was the GUBMINT, not Adobe, that launched the investigation. From your website, it looks like you know a thing or two about digital photography. I'm sure, on those other forums, you've heard from people who've been waiting desperately for one or more of the newly added features. Not a pro? Then Photoshop Elements will do the trick, and save you a pile of $$$. Heck, if you don't _like_ interfaces designed by UI designers, you might even try the GIMP. Have you ever posted to Adobe's support forums? The Photoshop and After Effects engineering teams actually answer questions and help troubleshoot. That doesn't seem too insulated from consumer backlash.