bluedragon1971 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 I'm happy about it-it means they can focus on one part of the project rather than wasting time supporting old processors-trying to iron out the bugs in a version I'm not going to use, rather than adding features to the version that the vast majority of people who are going to use this software are going to use. Good lord, if that isn't the most ignorant statement on these forums, I don't know what is. When are you (and Br0adband) going to get it through your thick skulls that the vast majority of current Mac owners are still PowerPC owners, especially those who would be interested in this kind of software. Like it or not, there are probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of PowerMac G4's & G5's in use in audio production companies around the world, and many of those machines were probably bought within the last few years. Those companies aren't likely to buy new machines for at least another year or so. Adobe is doing nothing but throwing their potential profits in the trash by releasing an Intel-only app. As others have said, Apple has been preaching XCode for years, and at Adobe, that sermon has fallen on deaf ears, which is why CS2 wasn't made with XCode. That alone is the reason that Adobe couldn't simply come up with a new release that was Universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aberracus Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 The REAL bottomline of this is ADOBE doesn't care for Macs anymore. They arent driving Macs sales they arent creating new software on mac first They arent supporting the latest of Macs The reallity is .. Adobe loves windows.... So Apple need to come and save the day with another FCP photoretouch equivalent product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 I can't wait until you get proven wrong, and almost all the developers follow suit in this. Apple's not going to complain whatsoever, either. I will be proven wrong...in a couple of years. And then you'll come back to gloat and say I was wrong...in a couple of years. Well, I will be wrong...in a couple of years and I'll be one of the first to come back on and discuss the pros and cons of such a thing...in a couple of years. Will Apple complain about Adobe releasing something Intel only? Not publicly, but I bet there are some private discussions going on. Will others follow suit? Well, there is an active Intel development group, but they seem to be working more on problems arising from the Intel processors themselves rather than developing Intel specific applications that would be the envy of us PPC users. There is also Parallels, but that needs the specifics of Intel processors to work, so I tend to not count something that needs something that PPC cannot supply (others would count it, so it's a matter of personal opinion with this one). Developers will only support Intel when they are either ready to do it or Apple forces the issue by no longer actively supporting Universal Applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPDM Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Actually I'd say what the hell. Let Adobe do their thing. If that turns out to be a huge mistake let them deal with it. Who cares? It's just so strange. On one hand they can't come up with the proper UB for it's graphics-flagship while on the other hand they'd cease all PPC development on cornering (or trying at least) another market. The really weird thing is that on the performance curve it are the GFX-ppl who'd die for a faster Intel-coded binary while on the SFX-front ppl still are very happy with their PPC machines (or so it seems). The world is indeed turned upside down. Every suit proclaiming stuff like "customer demand" and then you see this kind of stupidity. We're doomed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 This is the precise reason it is at the core of Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PlayStation 3, AND Nintendo's Wii. I didn't do any math or anything, but I'm sure that most Macs that get used these days are STILL PPC Macs, simply because they were built more carefully from the ground up with quality in mind (this is the software difference between the Windows world and pretty much everything else; the former is based on more rapid development than everything else). Older Macs are still quite usable. Give me the "PPC is dead" BS, and I'll give you a PowerBook G3 to the face. That last sentence is a funny reference to something that doesn't exist anywhere but in my head. give me a G3 to the face, if ppc is so alive and well, then why DOESNT APPLE MAKE THEM ANY MORE sure alot of people still own them, but you realize that apple would love to kill of ppc because THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUY A NEW x86 MAC just think about that for a minute or two.... and lol, sorry BRP, just read the last sentince lol, but im still posting this because it does have a decent point i guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbz Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 I think what he meant was that Macs with PPC chips still are a great value over Intel based Macs because of how well an older machine can run OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRP Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 If you're not going to read the whole post, read the goddam first sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts