Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Curious...
Curious...
2006-01-19, 5:53 PM #1
But, for those of you more experienced in the field than I, as far as the Intel Core Duo processors in Macs go--does this mean that Photoshop and Illustrator merely need minor tweakings and a recompile to work on the new Macs at full speed? I was wondering because I was thinking about investing in a MacBook if I end up going to college for art (slim chance), and don't want to wait a few years to get PS and Illustrator running at full speeds.
D E A T H
2006-01-19, 5:55 PM #2
That's an interesting question, and I don't know why not.

Edit: On second thought, I think it's more involved than that. Those programs are heavily platform dependent in nature.. I think they'd need some rewriting.

I mean, they'd technically compile on that architecture, but the environment variables would be all screwed up as well as the windows function calls and what not
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-01-19, 5:58 PM #3
I would imagine that since they have it for Intel on windows already, it shouldn't take long to get it ported to that chip on Mac.
gbk is 50 probably

MB IS FAT
2006-01-19, 7:07 PM #4
What would be more likely to happen is the OS calls of the Mac edition would be integrated with the architecture of the windows version.

All in all, it'd still be a lot of work to do.

Just think of it as Adobe writing it for linux, on the x86 architecture.
2006-01-19, 8:08 PM #5
It'll probably take about a year before the guys writing the compilers figure out all the optimizations for the new architectures that will result in the best speed gains. I'm taking a course in compilers this semester, and according to our professor, writing a compiler and figuring out the optimizations is a bit of a black art and a lot of trial and error. Very few people actually understand exactly what optimizations to apply and in exactly what order to make programs run their best.

That being said, I'm sure the products will compile and run fine, but probably not as well as they will a year from now.
Marsz, marsz, Dąbrowski,
Z ziemi włoskiej do Polski,
Za twoim przewodem
Złączym się z narodem.
2006-01-19, 10:48 PM #6
I'll get one of the lower end desktops when (a) I can afford it, and (b) when I space for it, but by then most macs should have made the move.

As a side note, did you notice how the press were convinced that the first intel macs were going to be the minis (as well as the powerbooks)? I always thought that was a bit silly seeing as they aren't as popular as expected.

*shrug*
2006-01-19, 10:59 PM #7
Depends on how nicely the program was written and how well they utilized Apple's API's. Supposedly, it only took Wolfram about an hour or so to port Mathematica to the x86 Mac OSX. However, I don't think Photoshop is as polished as Mathematica.
[This message has been edited. Deal with it.]
2006-01-19, 11:00 PM #8
I think you mean the other way round ;)

And Mathematica is already available for x86 (windows) as far as I know. I know for a fact Matlab is available for MacOS, linux and windows.

Boooooooo Matlab.
2006-01-20, 5:59 AM #9
Originally posted by Malus:
Depends on how nicely the program was written and how well they utilized Apple's API's. Supposedly, it only took Wolfram about an hour or so to port Mathematica to the x86 Mac OSX. However, I don't think Photoshop is as polished as Mathematica.

Uh...you mean Mathematica isn't as polished as Photoshop, right?

Martyn--the big trusted apple secrets site out there figured it'd be the iMacs and laptops.
D E A T H
2006-01-20, 9:16 AM #10
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uh...you mean Mathematica isn't as polished as Photoshop, right?[/QUOTE]

He was talking about the portability of the code... if it only took an hour, I think not.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-01-20, 8:49 PM #11
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uh...you mean Mathematica isn't as polished as Photoshop, right?[/QUOTE]

Mathematica is a pretty fine program if you ask me.
[This message has been edited. Deal with it.]
2006-01-20, 9:18 PM #12
Originally posted by Malus:
Mathematica is a pretty fine program if you ask me.

Um...photoshop guys. Probably one of the most polished, professional programs out there. There's a difference between not being able to port programs because they're not polished, and not being able to port them because they're so complex.
D E A T H
2006-01-20, 9:30 PM #13
You mean poorly coded. I think when they first put Photoshop on MacOSX, they had to emulate it with OS9 emulation. Pretty lame if you ask me. If they did a better job abstracting the low level code from the high level code, a port should have been much easier. Not to mention that they have an OSX version, but they still don't have a Linux version. I understand that the program is complex, but I think you are being a little unfair by saying that Mathematica is not a complex program. It does a little more that 2+2, chief.
[This message has been edited. Deal with it.]
2006-01-20, 10:11 PM #14
Oh, these threads are fun. Fanboys vs real, knowledable programmers!
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2006-01-20, 10:29 PM #15
Originally posted by Malus:
You mean poorly coded. I think when they first put Photoshop on MacOSX, they had to emulate it with OS9 emulation. Pretty lame if you ask me. If they did a better job abstracting the low level code from the high level code, a port should have been much easier. Not to mention that they have an OSX version, but they still don't have a Linux version. I understand that the program is complex, but I think you are being a little unfair by saying that Mathematica is not a complex program. It does a little more that 2+2, chief.

I'm not saying it's not complex, but think about how many years have gone into the development of Photoshop alone--not to mention its integration with the rest of the suite AND the rest of the suite alone. Now, I'm not going to say Photoshop is the best example of coding in the world because...I can't see the code. I can assume (I know, I know, assumptions) though that it is fairly clean considering the fact that they've been able to keep up steady additions (rather hefty ones at that) over the years without any major bugs, and keep corporations happy by having very few problems (because if they had a lot of problems I'm sure there wouldn't be so many Adobe licenses sold.) The only reason they don't make a linux version of Adobe products is because it's not profitable, and they're in BUSINESS for a reason.

Emon--how about you put down the pom-poms and add something to the discussion? I know you've been itching to burn me for a while now, so why don't you make yourself useful?
D E A T H

↑ Up to the top!