Macintosh and the Intel switch.

By now you have probably figured out that we aren’t releasing Universal Binaries of our current application versions.  If you haven’t, all you need to know is pretty explicitly spelled out here.

“But, c’mon”, I hear people saying, “Steve said it was just a recompile!”  Or, “Back during the PowerPC transition, you guys released a patch!”

Well, this time is different.  And I really wish it weren’t.  But let me tell you how…

When that original PowerPC transition was done, Apple did something clever.  Very clever.  The emulator that ran 68k code would recognize when it was calling out to PPC code, and would fiddle with things on the stack using the Universal Procedure calling vector.  A lot of gobbledy gook meaning that a 68k binary could call out to PPC code that could then execute at native speeds.  Well, for those that don’t know, Photoshop has a bunch of routines all tucked away to do the real heavy lifting – the bottlenecks.  Most of Photoshop’s CPU time is spent in these routines.  Even better, you can replace these routines using a plug-in.  There’s the Multiprocessor extension plug-in, which replaces some routines with ones that know how to divide work up among multiple processors.  And some which use the multimedia instruction sets that are available to varying degrees on different processors.  And, in the case of the PPC transition, we could replace them with PPC native versions.  With a plug-in, Photoshop could get a majority of the speed up as if it were a fully native application, but – and it’s a key point here – without having to recompile the vast majority of the Photoshop code, along with the resulting testing hit, mounds of debugging, and everything else that would imply.  Most of the gain with a fraction of the cost, it made sense to do a mid-cycle update consisting, essentially, of that plug-in.

Doing that this time around was just not possible for a variety of reasons.  It means is that this time, there’s no limited-cost option for getting most of the performance available on the platform for Photoshop in a short amount of time.  In other words, no shortcuts.

That leaves doing the work for real – taking the whole application over into XCode and recompiling as a Universal Binary.  And that’s no small task.  You see, as software has matured so have the development environments we’ve used – Visual Studio and Metrowerks – they’ve adapted to handle the ever-growing applications using them.  From having projects with large numbers of files that open quickly, to having compact debugging information, to having stable project formats that are text-merge-able in a source control system.  These are things XCode is playing catch-up on.  Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don’t yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well.  And switching compilers always involves more work than you would think in a codebase of this size.

Now, I’m an engineer, and I’m all for getting products out in front of customers so they can use their machines to their fullest as soon as possible, but there is just no way putting out a Universal Binary of Photoshop CS2 would make any sort of sense.  If you think about switching tool sets, with the resulting huge amount of work for both engineering and quality engineering, if you think about how far past the Photoshop CS2 release we already are, and if you include not having the workstation-class machines ready yet, I think you’d have to agree – far better to focus on making sure Photoshop CS3 is able to absolutely squeeze every ounce of power out of what I’m sure will be pretty spankin’ Intel-based towers by that point than to do tons of work moving an old code base to new tools.


237 Responses to Macintosh and the Intel switch.

  1. Rob says:

    Thank you for posting this. Using blogs for direct communication between engineers and customers gives us users something real to point to in the face of the endless uninformed speculation on the Web.

  2. Weyert de Boer says:

    Nice interesting post! No Adobe only should consider a Windows+Mac bundle of the Creative Suite!

  3. Peter Witham says:

    Thanks for this post. Being a software developer I can understand the problems involved and appreciate the explanation, all things considered a 2007 timeline is pretty quick given the tasks at hand.

  4. Tetra says:

    Glad to know that I spent $999 for support that consists of, “Durr. We can’t be bothered. Give us more money next year and we’ll think about it.”Kind of funny that companies with software as complex (if not more so) than CS2 aren’t having the same problems. Oops. Thanks for passing the buck to your customers.

  5. Davey says:

    Thanks for the post :-). It’s good to hear exactly what’s holding Photoshop back from someone actually working on it!

  6. Great post … if you don’t mind I’ll be pointing my students your way. Your direct, open, and honest communication has brought me new insight into why CS2 will be fine on my MacBook Pro — for now! Thanks for posting.

  7. Steve Kirks says:

    Very well put and easy to understand. Apple gave developers plenty of warning over the last 5 years about programming practices. When other developers were moving to Xcode, what was Adobe doing?(Not asked with sarcasm)

  8. Jon H says:

    Aw, come on Scott, don’t you have some old NeXTSTEP code that you could bash into shape for OS X?(Just kidding, that’d be painful.)

  9. Scott Byer says:

    Steve,We evaluated XCode last time around when we needed to move to the Mach-O object file format. Because of the many quirks of having a large, complex, older codebase, the evaluation showed that tackling both the Mach-O conversion and an XCode conversion in one cycle wasn’t achievable, and it had to get put off.-Scott

  10. Scott Byer says:

    Jon, don’t laugh!I do still have some small NeXTSTEP utilities I wrote for myself hanging around in my home directory. Even if I could get them going again, I don’t think I could quite pass them off as a large painting app. :-)-Scott

  11. Mike says:

    I thought that a good portion of the speed gains from Rosetta came from the fact that it calls out to the system’s native-code libraries? So while the app itself may be interpreted, the system calls run at native speeds.So it would seem that the ability in question (calling out to a native library) already appears to exist…

  12. Ryan Gardner says:

    If you send me the code, I’ll make the conversion for you. I’m pretty good at converting Metrowerks projects over to XCode…. 😛

  13. me says:

    Give me a break people. Adobe can do whatever they want. As if you’re goiing to go use a different product? It’s like complaining to Microsoft at this point about MS Office. What other choice to you have when the whole world uses Office? Adobe and Microsoft now run the show and can basically do what they want. So, put off buying that MacBook Pro if you don’t like how Photoshop runs on it… That doesn’t cost Adobe anything… what’s the motivation for them to get an Xcode version of Photoshop released right away? None.

  14. Oliver says:

    Tetra, like what? Apple Pro software isn’t universal yet, Microsoft Office isn’t yet. There are quite a few complex applications that are not universal yet probably for these very same reasons. I would assume it is no easy task in converting projects from CodeWarrior to XCode.

  15. Dave says:

    Thanks for an honest answer to the problem. Sometimes corporations and marketers feel that double speak and hints to the future keep end customers happy but the truth, even when hard to hear, is always the best medicine. While I suspect late 2006 or likely 2007 is the best we can hope for at least I now understand the issue far better.Thank you.

  16. Joel Day says:

    Rewrite Photoshop and Illustrator into one application, in Cocoa. Heh.

  17. Nick Hawkins says:

    This is very helpful to know for those of us who are Photoshop enthusiasts and are thinking about the migration to Intel-based OSX to support our work.

  18. Scott says:

    Tetra,Last I checked adobe did not ask Apple to change the architectures. The companys you speak of may were probably not emulating 68k code. If you were a programmer you would understand this. I would rather wait for CS3 then development be put off for months to release a hacked up version full of bugs for Intel macs. When CS2 was released, no one at adobe would have ever thought Apple would change architectures again.

  19. Scott says:

    Not for nothing, but this sounds like a bit of BS. So many applications are coming out everyday as updated universal binaries. Heck, Apple themselves are coming out with universals of their pro-apps… Of course they have more time to prepare, but still, these are big apps.I think Adobe’s and MS’s reasoning for not releasing universal binaries of current apps are twofold:1) The old binary runs, albeit slowly, on intel hardware. People that are currently running this software probably have machines that they can live with for the next year or so, so the company doesn’t see the need to spend the money to update these apps, as their customer base will make their purchasing decisions accordingly.2) What better reason is there to force a Creative Suite upgrade than only making universals available in the next version only. Common… This is not the first time that Adobe, and other publishers, have forced an upgrade to bring in income.If you think about it, this puts adobe in a great position. Why offer a free “patch” to bring universal compatibilitiy when they can force all users wanting native speeds to buy an expensive upgrade.This also forces anyone using the Adobe apps that NEED to upgrade their hardware to also have to update their software.Lastly, this could quite possibly be a great financial boon for Adobe, as quite a large portion of creative suite users are Mac users, thus forcing that whole population of users to upgrade.

  20. Jesse Donat says:

    Would it be any easier to port the Windows version to intel mac?

  21. coreen says:

    This may sound a bit harsh.So what your saying is that the last transition was the one where you slacked off and gave the customer a second rate set of tools. I am not trying to be mean or anything but it just sounds like you should have been working on eliminating the old 68k code completely so you would not have to rely on emulators and plug-ins. AND if i remeber last time Adobe was one of the last ones out of the gate to go native…or pseudo-native as it were(besides ..the ahem “other company” but at least they got it right the first time). Then during that time you managed to really concentrate of windows version and its performance. If I were your boss… you’d have been fired for lack of forthought in an ever changing business. Adobe has had enough time and resources to be prepared for something like this. Steve admitted to working on intel processors years back in a keynote. I am so glad i never bought CS2. I will stick with CS1 for now i guess. I appreciate your explanation but it really didn’t garner any sympathy. If I misunderstood anything please correct me.

  22. mejason69 says:

    Here Here I totally agree!!!Better to have one good product than two half ass products!!

  23. OSX says:

    I’m a long time NeXT user as well. I don’t mean to sound bitter, but you know what? I think it’s time Adobe actually did some hard work. They’ve been charging folks an awful lot for those upgrades throughout the years. When I think how little Photoshop has really changed over the years, all I can say, is, get to work! Many “photoshop”type features are handled directly in the OS these days. How hard can it be? Maybe whipping out some of that NeXT code might be a good thing. 😉

  24. Joshua Ochs says:

    This is just wonderful in so many ways. We really need straight talk from engineering on things like this. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been stymied by people who would only toss the corporate line when a simple explanation, roadmap, or a few details would have made a world of difference. Bravo!Meanwhile, Apple should probably be cut some slack on the Intel transition as well. Remember that with PowerPC they were at least partially involved with the chip design requirements, and had years to come up with the nifty dynamic emulator they released. Here they had much less time, and no input at all into the architecture. Really, the whole Rosetta environment came from Transitive, not from Apple.Other much less complex programs have sometimes adopted a hybrid approach – have one process call another to get around the “whole process emulation” limitation of Rosetta. For example, the Missing Sync uses this to provide PowerPC syncing compatibility from within a native Intel application and framework. I realize that Photoshop and others are infinitely more complex and plugins are not the same as calling external processes, but couldn’t something like that have been worked out as a similar stopgap to the PowerPlug of yore?

  25. iTech says:

    Adobe: Your form uses invalid Tab sequence.

  26. Michael Williams says:

    Tetra,Sounds like $999 for your PPC based adobe tools are going to give you just that – support on ppc. Clearly you’ve never worked in software otherwise you would know putting together a world-class application is a lot of work, especially when you have multiple platforms to test. I live and brethe in commercial software development, and I can tell you the amount of effort if supporting a new platform… and no I don’t work for Adobe.So next time you buy a new piece of hardware, you should do some research to see if *your* applications will run… clearly this wasn’t done /before/ you made your purchase.

  27. pdx says:

    This was absolutely great. Having a blog like this is a hundred times better than what Macromedia had been doing. I’d love to read a post about how, if at all, Apple’s move from 64 bit to 32 bit (in their first Intel Chip choices) effects this transition?

  28. Joe1 says:

    I found your post refreshingly forthcoming and technically interesting. Thank you.

  29. david says:

    Who cares if Adobe is slow to go universal. Maybe the people who were so quick to run out and buy an intel Mac should have waited to see what apps would be available. Please, stop blaming Adobe for your lack of foresight. Besides, if you are so hot to run Adobe Photoshop on intel buy a Dell. Otherwise, stop being a Monday quarterback. Its not like Apple is a huge market share customer. Maybe Adobe wants to spare customers who pay a premium for their superior products from all the bugs and hassles with a quick patch. I think the blame should be put on Apple. They should have taken the time to not release products with so many issues. Rosetta…please!!!! Apple use to mean quality. It looks like Adobe is acting in the best interests of their customers, something Apple needs to go back to doing.

  30. Jean-Denis Muys says:

    Well, I think there is still a way to make the bottleneck approach work. A new set of PowerPC bottlenecks could use IPC to hand out the real job to another, Intel-based process.There would be *some* overhead compared to a fully native implementation, but the limited knowledge I have of Photoshop leads me to believe this would still be a large improvement.-JD-

  31. Jeremy says:

    Scott, thanks for the informative blog. I know this isn’t your department, but looking at the pdf you linked to, I didn’t see any mention of Macro… er Adobe Director. Since our entire business is based on Director, this is more than a little disconcerting. Any info?(I don’t need any mocking comments from the crowd about how we shouldn’t base a business on a single tool. After all how many of your business’s depend on Photoshop?? It just so happens Director is *perfect* for what we do. No other tool, certainly not Flash, comes close.)

  32. Timothy says:

    Just wanted to say thanks for the explanation. I’m a graphic designer with a small marketing firm, and the “IT” guy since I’m already paid and cheaper than outsourcing all our IT work. Now I have somewhere to direct my boss when she asks why I told her not to purchase CS2 yet, and to wait until the new version. We plan on purchasing Intel towers after they’ve been out for a bit, and I didn’t want us to spend the money on software that wouldn’t be a full capability. As I said we’re a small firm and can’t toss money around like the big guys. Again, thanks for tell the customer what’s going on, it’s rare that a company of your size actually speaks to the public this candidly.

  33. Tim says:

    Scott, why do you have to move to Xcode to build a Universal Binary? Surely getting the code to build with GCC 4 is the real issue.

  34. G.A. Brannon says:

    one of the best reasons not to switch to apple as if I needed another one

  35. Thank you for the post Scott. As a developer I have to wonder about Adobe’s motivations. Everyone who has worked in multiple environs knows that XCode is not as robust as the alternatives. However, Apple has been very consistent in their push to move folks to XCode. Apple said we had to learn to use it. Sounds to me like Adobe made a bad bet and is now paying for it.If a major portion of your customers wait for and purchase CS3, then you may have spent your dev dollars wisely. Looking at Quark vs. InDesign, I imagine you are hoping that no “good-enough” CS competitor jumps into the ring before you are suited up.Personally, I think it is a real shame that a company with as many resources as Adobe did not prepare for the switch to Intel better. Not trying to bash you for opening up and being honest but it sounds to me (Visual Studio) that Adobe has tied their cart rather tightly to the M$ wagon. Delays in Vista… Delays in Adobe apps for OS X on Intel. 2006 does not look like a very bright year for innovation and happy customers.PS: I sound a little tweaked ‘cuz I am delaying my purchase of three Intel Macs ’til I can run CS2 (or “good enough” graphic apps) at native speeds. If I have to run Windows on Mac hardware, so be it. Unfortunately, waiting 6 months or more is just not an option. I will find alternatives.

  36. Dean Blackburn says:

    My question is simple – assuming that we’re waiting on CS3 and tower-class machines… Is Adobe putting any visible effort into speeding up the dev process for “Universal CS3” now that Apple has made it clear that they will be something like 6-9 months early completing the transition to Intel? Obviously, the faster you go, the harder it is to squash every bug, but with apps as large as CS/Quark/what have you, it seems the consumer always* ends up doing most of the QC on the initial release anyway… So, with that in mind, why not* try to get the next version out a bit sooner?

  37. Scott, it seems to me that the lineage of the code and assumptions about PPC might pose a bit of a challenge too. Adobe’s apps are multi-platform so I assume there’s some abstraction, but I can’t believe this is true everywhere.If one was to read this post without any context, they might get the impresssion that the IDE is the only factor. What would you say the split is between the two issues?

  38. Andi says:

    As a professional software developer I have worked on small private and very large commercial projects, using Codewarrior, VS and XCode on multiple platforms. Not keeping your codebase up-to-date and easily switchable from one tool set to another is lack of foresight and planning.Yes, maybe your codebase is old and complex. Time for a rewrite, buddy. If you don’t do it, your competitors might just overtake you.Only big companies like Adobe can afford to ignore that and survive. And the users suffer.

  39. Ralf Koller says:

    will photoshop cs3 be a cocoa app if you are rewriting it from ground up?

  40. Jens Tenhaeff says:

    Interesting read, and since I’m not a techie I’ll buy into your reasoning. A beast like Photoshop with more than 18 years of code under its belt is gonna be a plumber’s nightmare to move to a new dev-enviroment.Still, I wonder about InDesign. This one is rather new (compared to PS or AI) and – presumeably – not as convoluted as Photoshop. Any chance to bring that up to universal? Or is it a marketing descision not to release individual updates to the individual components of CS?

  41. pdc says:

    Have you evaluated other ways of getting around the bottleneck? A cheeky RPC to a native daemon + shared memory could go a really long way, and give y’all some time to do things in a more … elegant way.

  42. tim says:

    Thanks for an excellent insight.It’s articles like this that underline the power of blogs.

  43. DocB says:

    Nice to see a real explanation rather than corp speak. I for one am willing to wait for a quality product.

  44. Thanks for enlightening us! Am waiting for the next release.

  45. Simon says:

    that makes complete sense and conferms what a few people thought was happening. its a good strategy and ends up being better for the end user.

  46. Adobe HR Department says:

    Thank you for your comments. You’re fired now.Move along. Nothing to see here.

  47. Claudio says:

    Scott,Apple herself is aware of the complexity of this port, so the guidelines suggest to first compile your project as Mach-O in your actual development tool, and then port the project to Xcode.These things make me strongly believe that we need in the near future a standardized common format for software projects.Thanks for this post, anyway.

  48. Arcus says:

    Sounds like an oportunity for another company opened. Since photoshop is used like q-tip I dont think it will be replaced quickly but we can sure try. GIMP anyone. OSS to the rescue here. Time to start losing marketshare.

  49. Pete says:

    Ive noticed a performance hit, especially in memory usage,with CS2 when compared to CS1.I hope the switch to XCode will improve this and and also improve performance of CS3 on the PowerPC platform.

  50. Brian Most says:

    The combination of Intel plugins with a PPC caller or vice-versa could still be achieved by calling new processes instead of calling shared libraries. Make a glue layer for the PPC Photoshop app that turns plugin API calls into interprocess calls to an Intel plugin server process. The plugin server process would then load and call Intel plugins for the heavy lifting. You can still share memory between a rosetta and native process, so there’s no data copying overhead introduced. And the plugin server would be dead simple, doing nothing more than loading and calling library functions and doing some data format twiddling.With a project the size of Photoshop, wouldn’t you want to do something like this internally anyway? For the CS3 Intel-Mac porting effort, one would think you guys wanted to break schedule dependencies between the base app and plugins.

  51. Realist says:

    What a load of horseshit, Scott.Apple has been telling developers to move to Xcode…FIVE YEARS AGO.The least Adobe could have done is parallel Metrowerks/Xcode development of Photoshop so that the day where Adobe had no choice but to use Xcode, they’d have most the pieces running.There was no surprise. You guys didn’t get caught with your pants down (if you did, then Adobe is incompetent…Adobe isn’t incompetent, right?) Plain and simple, you guys just didn’t want to spend time and money on parallel development and, in the end, you will lose because of that decision.

  52. neoguri says:

    Great post. Very insightful. I can not even begin to image what a large operation migrating from Metrowerks & Visual Studio must to Xcode must be. Good luck with that!!!

  53. Mark says:

    Like many large companies, I think Adobe simply bet that it could wait another 2-3 years before making the switch to Xcode. Apparently they did not see the big hints that Apple kept making to developers.The fact is Adobe (and Microsoft) lost this bet and it is the customer that ultimately pays for this (waiting for these mega-beasts to get their act together).Finally, There is NO EXCUSE for Adobe launching Elements 4.0 as PPC-only. A product that was launched 7-months AFTER the Intel switch was announced.There are plenty of technical excuses that can be had for delays, but ultimately they are just that, excuses.

  54. Jeremy P says:

    Scott,Thanks for a clear explanation. It makes a lot of sense technically. I love Photoshop. It is an amazing tool that has been a mainstay of my work for a very long time. And I also love Apple.However, my first thought regarding Adobe’s position was that it was a backlash against Apple. Ha! Now we’ve got them! This will teach them to make competing products… Mwahahaha. And I’m sure that is why you are having to blog this in the first place. Many of your loyal customers are thinking this.Waiting anxiously for an accelerated release of CS3…jeremy

  55. DD says:

    I hope Adobe uses the transition as an opportunity to think ahead. For example, will Adobe be using the Core Graphics facility that Apple built in to OSX?DD

  56. I am not sure I understand. Photoshop is available for Windows and Intel chips right? So why can’t that ‘heavy lifting’ code be used for Intel Mac? Either way, I haven’t upgraded since version 8 and am not running out to buy an Intel Mac, so I’m probably not the guy you should please. Really appreciate this blog though 🙂

  57. Jason says:

    Thanks much for the info; we’re all looking forward to CS3.However, since you guys are already deep in Photoshop code doing the OSX/Intel port, how about also whipping together a Linux port (Ubuntu would make a great candidate for a target Linux OS!).

  58. Randy McSorley says:

    One of the things I love most about Photoshop – as well as the entire Creative Suite – is that it’s rock-solid and dependable. I would much rather wait for a Universal Binary CS3 that risk a flaky CS2.Good call, Adobe. And thanks for this blog!

  59. olly says:

    Thanks for the explanation Scott. It’s so refreshing to hear a developer’s point of view on issues such as this.Roll on CS3 (and those Mactel towers…)

  60. Jamie Kelly says:

    Hi Scott,Will CS3 take advantage of the Fonts palette that ‘true’ OS X apps use?The one thing that really lets Photoshop down IMO is the way it handles fonts. Using FontExplorer X I can activate/deactivate fonts in all apps no problems, but Photoshop always struggles, sometimes not working.

  61. Thanks for that interesting tidbit. I can only agree to most of it. The Xcode text editing is still a quite painful experience compared to the old CodeWarrior (opening a source file of any size in Xcode takes about four seconds to populate the functions menu, regardsless of the number of lines of source in the file! And that is on a G5 Quad!!!)But I am very happy that you make this public, as that will increase the pressure on the Xcode devleopment team to speed up, and make Xcode better for all of us.And that doesn’t mean that the Xcode team isn’t hard at work, on the contrary, they are doing great, but there is still a long way to go.

  62. Eren says:

    Are you telling me there’s no way to develop for osx on intel other than XCode?

  63. I think that by not putting all the men-hours and doing an extra effort to please the Mac community Adobe is disrespecting it’s costumers.

  64. Rumor Girls says:

    Excellent..thanks for the info! 🙂

  65. All I really care about is having CS3 make the pen tool work the same way it did in Photoshop 7. Nothing made me more distraught than loading CS2 and discovering that I had LOST key functionality. Then please get the Illustrator team to use the same pen tool code. Okay a docking tool palette would be nice too.

  66. Mark Bolick says:

    Scott,I noticed this week that Propellerhead software is realeasing both an Intel and PowerPC version of Reason, not a Universal since they did not want to move to Xcode and still use Codewarrior. Has Adobe considered doing the same? After all, you’re pretty much looking at installing on one system (maybe two with a laptop). I’m wondering if there is actually a pressing reason to deal with a Universal Binary at all?

  67. Dave Thorup says:

    Scott, thanks for a great post that addresses some of the harsh realities of the transition. As a fellow engineer working on transitioning a bunch of large, CodeWarrior-based applications I know just how hard and time-consuming it is. It’s unfortunate that the uninformed masses think it’s something easy and trivial.Plus, Apple wasn’t even supposed to be shipping Intel-Macs yet. If you had to make plans, like all of us did at last year’s WWDC, then you’d be planning for the first Intel-Macs to show up in June of this year. Now everybody is blaming us, the third-party developers, for not having our applications ready.And you’re right, using Xcode for large applications can be painful. When you open even just a handful of files (say 6 or 7) then for some reason Xcode just slows down. I really wish they’d do something to speed it up, there’s no reason for such a slowdown when you open lots of windows.I can’t agree with this though:…having stable project formats that are text-merge-able in a source control system.CodeWarrior has never had text-merge-able, stable project formats (CW 10 doesn’t count). Their project files have always been binary and they change the format from version to version. While Xcode’s format hasn’t been very stable at least it’s always been a text-based format.

  68. George Bailey says:

    Very well put. And Tetra, the product you bought still works. If you think it came with a guarantee of running on a completely different architecture, well, you’re just not thinking clearly.

  69. Sounds like the upgrades are going to cost us a fortune! How about the Marcormedia products? Did they plan correctly?

  70. Nate Silva says:

    Is Metrowerks dead? If they supported Intel compilation it would really be “just a recompile.” If CodeWarrior is dead, then Adobe was going to have to switch to XCode anyway. Which, I realize, is a hell of a lot of work.

  71. justanothercoder says:

    You put out on engineering perspective quite well. But where is the customer perspective? As a customer do i want to care about old code base/new code base/old tools/new tools combo?As an engineer you are supposed to solve the issues, and from your own admission, your code base is tied to the tools.Not having a universal binary splits the market very nicely though. It means that you are forcing the users into using a specific platform for speed or features or have the potential to do so. The over riding reason why you guys don’t have a universal binary is not an engineering problem but a marketing decision.

  72. Len Rooney says:

    A great read, thanks!I realize that you probably have to maintain a feature parity with Window’s version of Photoshop, but can we expect to see you do anything Apple’s Core Image code or similar real-time filter effects?

  73. Thomas Blom says:

    Steve,Thank you for the insight. Best of luck for the porting job! However, do you have any knowledge what kind of development environment Apple uses for their “pro” applications? Is it XCode? I am just curous, not trying to blame anyone or so. I mean, they are probably to be considered as large applications? Or is there an Apple-exclusive in-house environment?

  74. Marianne Young says:

    Hi!This is sooo much better and much more eloquently elaborated than the generic answers I see on our FAQs.Appreciate the insight and the honesty. Thank you!

  75. Prepressman says:

    Oh come on!! The fact of the matter is Adobe CEO’s wanted to standardize on Windows and write off Apple completely.I’ve seen the material Aodbe had printed up suggesting people use a Windows PC with Photoshop as it was faster and more productive.Steve Jobs turning Apple around has caused some headaches for you, quit crying and roll up your sleeves and get to work.

  76. Sussed says:

    Nice to know what the hold up is, thanks for some light on this issue….Though it kind’a reinforced my feeling that Photoshop (and Illustrator) is bloated with code from years of “work around” fixes and short cut innovation taking the cheep, easy way out. Adobe products once seem to have nice lively feel to them with a lean memory/processing footprint. But over the years that footprint has gotten bigger and unwieldy with very little to show for it (CS1 the pinnacle). I’m hoping that this change to the code will force trimming of the fat to this and all Adobe products.

  77. Jacob Munoz says:

    I don’t blame you guys for not wanting to undertake this gargantuan task, Apple should be providing a better migration path than they are. For the love of ___ – they’ve changed the system’s endian as well, just do me a favor and shoot me in the face before I go ranting at Steve Jobs…

  78. Matthew Higgs says:

    My company runs a significant Mac studio. Personally, I have run Mac OS X since beta without a single issue. Most of our staff run G4-5s that just run and run and keep on running… Those staff in admin running that other operating system, that just keeps serving up conflict after conflict, I feel sorry for… For our Mac guys however, there is no way we will upgrade hardware until CS3 with Universal Binaries is here. So Adobe, it’s up to you… All the very best!

  79. Apple Engineer says:

    I’m not going to pretend XCode doesn’t suck. It does, and not just for large projects.But there’s no reason you have to use XCode to make Photoshop compile. I know Apple calls the dev tools “XCode” as a whole, but really they’re mostly just gcc. You can use gcc and a makefile (heck, use ANT instead of you want, a Perl script or just an sh script).I know this doesn’t solve everything, since I understand gcc itself has some problems with your code. But it’ll be a lot more profitable than banging your head against XCode trying to bend it to your will.The PowerPC mixed-mode/UPP stuff may have been fun for developers, but it caused significant compromises within the Mac system. It contaminated the entire system with compromises, all the way to the interrupt handlers. It even required changes to the kernel in MacOS X. Just the parameter marshalling stuff alone (that converted calling conventions) was quite hefty.Not providing it this time ment fewer hacks in the Mac OS X system. And providing it would have been near impossible anyway. When interfacing between Power PC and 68K, there were two issues. First is converting the calling conventions, I already addressed that. Second is making sure that any data structure you passed between the two was the right “shape” so that when you dereferenced a pointer to a structure or array you got the same field or entry on both sides.And well, that second part is the tough part. Why? Because with the Intel switch, the Mac went from big-endian to little endian. You’d have to change your code to go through accessors to access everything, so it could figure out whether it should be little-endian or big-endian. You couldn’t even convert the data structures in place at the call boundary, because what if another thread tries to access that structure, and you’ve just flipped its endianness around?So please lay off the implications that Apple just didn’t want to accomodate you. Apple may be backstabbing their developers (esp. Adobe) in the marketplace, but so far they haven’t intentionally made it difficult to develop for the Mac.And although I understand how difficult it is to requalify a product, I also know that you typically balance that against expected revenue from the product. So the choice is spending a lot of time and money making CS2 work and releasing a (presumably free) upgrade, or else spending a lot of time and money making CS3 work to the tune of hundreds of dollars in upgrade fees per seat. It seems a lot less of an altruistic “do the platform justice” decision as a monetary one. And well, Adobe is in business to make money, so I understand the decision.I also want to extend a small bit of sympathy for the weird lineup of machines Apple has made available. Much of the development work at the large scale software companies I’ve seen is traditionally done on tower machines. This is for speed and because you can use a huge screen and a KVM. And Apple has made what available to Intel developers? Laptops, iMacs and Mac Minis? I know the Minis are speedy, but the 2.5″ drive means compiles aren’t as fast as they could be. iMacs come out ahead on the drive front, but only come with 20″ monitors and the monitor is included so you end up buying a new monitor from Apple that you really didn’t need.I know there are the prototype towers, but if you look at Intel’s roadmap, P4 is dead and so it doesn’t seem like those machines are representative of what Apple will ship to customers, so they seem like poor development machines too.I may be angry that Office, Photoshop (and FCP) aren’t Intel native yet. But that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why it is the case. It still hurts though, it’s going to hurt the platform a lot.

  80. Nick Woolridge says:

    I appreciate that Adobe faced a difficult task in making the conversion, but it was certainly not impossible.Other developers, such as Maxon, the makers of Cinema 4D, have released free universal updates to their apps. Maxon faced a similar problem: they were dependant upon Metrowerks, and had a large, complex codebase (for instance, their Bodypaint 3d painting module alone replicates probably more than half of Photoshop’s functionality, in a 3D environment!). Despite the difficulties, they had the will to forge ahead, and have reaped a PR windfall, and seen the performance of their code improve as well.

  81. Julien G says:

    Except that (as Steve said) this is really two things:1. Moving to xCode, which while a fair bit of work should require minimal code changes.and2. The move to x86. The only problems here should be in UI, as your backend already copes with the little endian x86. (and if the backend is split between the two OS’ this is a good chance to unify them)Yes you have a huge legacy code base, yes moving to xCode means redoing the build (as an alternative you could always shun the IDE and just use good old *nix makefiles of which the basics have remained standard for over 30 years) and if you are genuinely finding bugs in xCode Apple should have their guys over at your offices fixing them. But your post is just the fluff that’s so common from large software houses. CS2 was released *after* everyone knew about the intel switch and you would have already recieved your test machiens, there’s very justifiable reasons for this.You claim:”far better to focus on … Photoshop CS3 … than to do tons of work moving an old code base to new tools.”Except it will just be an older code base, and this sort of work is not normally done by the same people that go around implementing new features.

  82. Ryan Nix says:

    THANK YOU SCOTT for actually explaining this. I work for large ad agency in Chicago that has a 300 user license of CS 2, and we could never get a straight answer out of our rep. In fact, he said CS2 wouldn’t run at all on the new Intel machines and no one could fully explain why Adobe wouldn’t make a universal binary. Thanks for doing this! 🙂

  83. G says:

    Interesting. I’d love to see vast portions of the Photoshop interface rewritten to use cocoa objects as much as possible.

  84. Geoff Miller says:

    Isn’t part of the problem that Adobe never moved to Cocoa, which would have made the whole, “it’s just a recompile” thing closer to a real statement? Staying with a codebase that never moved forward would make for a painful port. Looks like Adobe gets to be the ugly step child instead of Quark this time around. Hopefully, His Steveness won’t need to get all snarky like he did with Quark.Still, a 2007 delivery sucks for whole upgrade cycle. I wonder how much Adobe (marketing/management) cares that they will essentially be holding up the entire migration cycle – and help soften the blow by giving their customer base some sort of bone for having to wait this out.

  85. If/when you do get around to recoding, please also be sure to completely change the interface again so that we’ll have to attend your training seminars. I mean afterall, we are Mac users, and people think we are made of money.-he who stacks pork

  86. Dave Snider says:

    I just wanted to say I totally applaud you guys for being frank about the situation to your customers. While I was initially pissed about the problem, your reasoning makes sense.I’ll just wait patiently and buy a tower. My g5 is doing fine.And of course, this just means CS3 better be awesome 🙂

  87. James says:

    Sounds familiar. Apple gets away with this stuff all to often. At least they have started to document some of their code.Its kinda telling because wasn’t their a time when the ONLY application you really used a mac for was photoshop?

  88. brian warren says:

    I think it’s awesome that you guys are blogging stuff like this. Thanks for the update.I’d love to pick up CS2, but I know I’m going to be running on intel in the future, and can’t afford to upgrade to CS2 and CS3. Do you guys plan on offering free upgrades to cs2 buyers who purchase past a specific date? I’ll buy CS2 asap after that date if you do.

  89. Woodster says:

    It’s no wonder engineers so often prefer to stick to writing code and leaving the customer-relations to the product managers. When I see the ignorant minions on this list yapping with statements like “you’d have been fired for lack of forthought in an ever changing business” it makes me wonder why Scott even bothers.But it doesn’t a lot of thought: He bothers because he’s crafted a portion of this product. He is a creator. In every engineer there is an element of artist – perhaps not one using Photoshop – but one that’s proud of his work and wants to see it thrive. His company’s interest should be financially motivated, but based on how he wrotes, I would say that his desire to post is not a financial motiviation, it’s a passion for the art of coding. And it’s because he feels he can explain an aspect of the story a little bit better than the public relations can. He’s right.Every major software company with a cross platform product more than a couple years old is going to have done it the same way: Using a common C++ codebase with Visual Studio for the Windows build and CodeWarrior for the Mac build. Now everyone needs to move from CodeWarrior to Xcode because CodeWarrior has thrown in the towel and is no longer competing with Apple in the IDE/compiler market. (Why would they?) Xcode demos well, looks pretty, simplifies a lot of things, and it’s maturing. Rapidly. But it has its differences. A planned, structured migration is the proper way to move.This move to Xcode isn’t about CS3. It’s about CS6 and CS8 and every other future OSX product that ships from Adobe.Rome wasn’t built in a day. If it was, Adobe would have hired their engineers.

  90. Stewie says:

    I’m sure that the switch is not an easy one and I would be lying to say I understand all the details completely.I do however use Adobe products and have seen the trend of their products go from being feature based upgrades to marketing based.I have no doubt that a large part of this is a marketing ploy. Not enough to gain with converting CS2 but to push people to upgrade to CS3? Now that is a sound marketing descion.Adobe like many other companies have been adding bells and whistles to their applications to spark interest and get that upgrade sale. They constantly been lacking in fixing or adding common sense functionality to their applications. Have you ever tried using the align tools in Illustrator? They are abismal but they stay that way. I know it’s an “inferior” product but try using Corel Draw and you’ll see a lot of common sense functionality at it’s best. Align tools that work, printing that’s a breeze, selection tools that select only what you click on and so on.History has shown that not all the best products succeed. Windows over Apple, VHS over Beta etc.While I don’t deny Adobe the right to make a sound business choice I don’t believe they always make it to help their customers as much as their stockholders.We applauded Adobe for coming up with Indesign to break the strangle hold Quark had and making us use that piece of junk. But there is nobody to do the same to Adobe when it comes to Photoshop and Illustrator. It’s a shame because they are good applications that seem to becoming “Microsofted” bloatware. If they can get back with this release of CS3 to enchancing it’s rudimentary features than it will be worth the wait.I can wait for CS3 and I have been using Apple products for years and have no intention of switching. I also know never to buy a first release of a major technology. I’ll wait till the intel switch is a generation further along and then Adbobe should be about ready. I just hope It be a system hog more than it already is.

  91. So:You didn’t bother to really write your programs for the PPC. But it didn’t matter much. Nobody noticed.And so now, you won’t bother to really rewrite them for Universal.I can understand that. It means “**** you” to the customer.Or in my case, as much as possible, former customer.You have my permission to look up, but not publicize, my adobe purchases in the past. I’m always sabadash.”-“

  92. FrameMaker Mac User says:

    Frankly I’m not too surprised to hear that Adobe won’t be able to get CS3 working on Intel-based Macs. Honestly I’ve lost a ton of respect for Adobe lately. Between the difficulty of running some Adobe apps on case-sensitive file systems and the dropping of FrameMaker for Mac supposedly because the prior (Classic only in an OS X world) version sold poorly, Adobe’s not been looking good lately to me.Actually, considering the lack of an OS X version of FrameMaker and the rumors surrounding it, I wouldn’t be too surprised to later hear that Adobe had killed its efforts to port its other products to the new platform.

  93. bigmouthontour says:

    Good to have a comparison with the 68K to PPC transition, which was a breeze. I worked for an Apple reseller at the time.However, the position Adobe finds itself in only makes me wonder why Adobe was quicker to move its codebase to Xcode earlier.If Xcode is catching up to other more advanced IDEs then surely it would make sense to move before the code increases in size and complexity (which is has traditionally done with successive releases) becomes unmanageable. Or were Adobe waiting for Xcode to reach a certain point.It’s a bit of both Apple and Adobe, but as usual the consumer loses.

  94. docmanhattan says:

    Reading through this long list of comments, you’d get the impression that people have been forced to buy Intel-based Macs. (I’m sure someone will pipe up and say I HAD to buy it…)As someone astutely pointed out, however, perhaps those that rely on a specific application should consider what is supported before jumping to the latest and greatest hardware. Doing the opposite and assuming everything to run the same is irresponsible.

  95. stingerman says:

    Scott,Thanks for the post. One point: It is possible to develop a plugin that calls another intel native process. Your current Plugin architecture should make this easy. Since the key plugins, such as the multiprocessor plugin, should have no presentation layer, this should be a home run.There was another post higher up that mentioned the same thing. What are the chances that Adobe will do this? Marketwise surely you guys see that such an interim update will motivate PS7 and CS users to go to CS2 today. And their are abundant users that will upgrade, if they thought it was worth it. Most users will not delay their purchase of macbooks, on the contrary they will look for alternatives. You know in this business, the mighty fall overnight, recall WP. Heck, if I was MSFT, I would release a Mac only universal of their new drawing tools which are currently just for Windows.How about Apple bringing Shake Painting functions down to Aperture? How about Corel, using this to re-enter the Mac market? How about a third party even?

  96. stingerman says:

    CS2 is supported on the MacBook, but under Rosetta. For many who are upgrading from

  97. Someone says:

    CodeWarrior aren’t really throwing in the towel because of XCode – it’s because of Eclipse and MS VS.Besides, a decent cross platform automated build system will not use *any* IDE.Rather, you will have either a proto-makefile system that can generate “good old UNIX makefiles (and VS nmake files)” as well as potentially IDE solution files for e.g. VS; or a make-a-like like jam, scons, cmake and so on.You then dispatch your cross-platform automated build onto various different operating systems to build in parallel. It all happens non-interactively from the command line.Unfortunately, developing such a system is never a high priority for companies, since it does not in itself bring in a profit. Having dedicated engineers working on infrastructure is a rare luxury. It is deeply non-trivial.

  98. Bruce Bullis says:

    > Good to have a comparison with the 68K to PPC transition, which was a breeze.Hilarious.Sorry you had to be a lightning rod, Scott; keep up the good work.

  99. Mike says:

    As usual the internet is fully of idiots who don’t understand about developing software on a large scale and the tradeoffs and decisions and limitations that come with it. Especially with a codebase as old as Photoshop. Thanks for the blog post.

  100. Don says:

    “Apple Engineer” stated that, “Apple may be backstabbing their developers (esp. Adobe) in the marketplace…”Excuse me? Apple waited patiently FOR YEARS for Adobe to produce applications to took advantage of unique Apple technologies. It got tired of waiting so it finally released its own world-beating applications based on those technologies.Adobe could have done so but it was apparently more concerned about kowtowing to the Windows market. It was Adobe that was doing the backstabbing, “Apple Engineer.”This nonsense (‘XCode can’t handle large applications’) and general excuse-making regarding the switch to Intel-native code is more of the same. Come to think of it, Adobe is backstabbing its own customers, too. Nice going, Adobe.

  101. +Scott, nice job of addressing a complex issue, despite so many negative comments. I’m a CS1 and CS2 user on several Mac G4s, and still getting ample performance in numerous professional environments. For those who have graduated to G5 and Intel Macs, perhaps this is one suggestion Adobe (or Apple) should consider:How about a performance chart of CS2 apps running on a G4 system, a G5 system, and an Intel Mac under Rosetta? Heck, throw in a Windows performance bar just as a useful comparison tool. Why?Surely I’m not the only pro Mac user still running a G4 system. So how does Dual-Core Intel/Rosetta Photoshop performance compare to 1GHz G4 performance? I might find it compelling to upgrade to MacTel now, for genuine performance gains, even though an Intel-compatible CS3 is a year or so away.OK, that having been said, from a practical perspective for Adobe itself, beware of Quark. You guys gained share on them because of InDesign’s rapid transition to OS X. Quark seems to be trying to do the reverse with the MacTel switch.Random related question: Now that you guys own Dreamweaver, what’s the fate of GoLive in CS3? Will you merge the two apps, or will GoLive get the axe to the admittedly more popular web editor? Please no, if that’s the case: I find GoLive superior, and have used it since long before Adobe bought it.Pass that along to your web folks if possible, and best wishes with Photoshop CS3.mrmgraphics

  102. Scott Byer says:

    Everyone, thanks for the interesting comments. It’s taken me a bit to catch up, but I have read everything.Apologies for my initial poor choice of words that implied Apple just chose not to accomodate us on calling out to native code. A bad mental lapse on my part. The Apple engineer commenting above was very kind in not taking me to task more for that.While the solution of calling across to a native task using shared memory is interesting, there would still be latency issues for small operations that I don’t think customers would tolerate, and it would still require significant work within the application itself to enable. That puts it beyond what is reasonable to do in an update.And, I am actually looking forward to moving to XCode, as Dave is right, CodeWarrior never did succeed at providing text-mergable projects. I’m sure XCode will. And as some have noted, the IDE isn’t the whole issue, getting things compiling on GCC again is a big part of the process. If you visit the CodeWarrior for Mac OS page, you’ll find that there was no alternative.For those left with the impression that there was any 68k code left in the app at all, let me correct that – the PowerPC accelerator plug-ins was just a transition strategy. Photoshop has been fully native PPC and highly optimized on the Macintosh platform for a long time now. When Photoshop CS3 ships as a Universal Binary, the Intel side will also be highly optimized.I think it’s fair that some users vent at us for the speed of this transition. I wish it could be done faster. And no, we really didn’t have an inkling the Intel transition was coming until Steve announced it in June.For those things under our control, the Photoshop team continues to try and make choices strongly based on what we think is best for the customer. It’s fair to disagree with our choices, and we’re always open to valid arguments about that.-Scott

  103. Gavin says:

    There are a lot of negative comments going on here, and I think that’s uncool. First off, even if there was some way that Adobe engineers could magically recompile their applications to the Intel platform, and they were just holding out to force people to upgrade, “calling” them on it isn’t going to change their minds.Now, I don’t believe that users are being held out on. It’s a tough thing to port a huge, very specialised codebase over from one platform to another. Especially when the codebase no doubt has a lot of history. If this wasn’t true, you could bet that the Mac platform would have a lot of games!Another thing to keep in mind is that calling down an engineer that was kind enough to cut through the market speak isn’t good. We want to encourage this sort of thing, not discourage it. I would love to hear more sorts of things like this, reports straight from the source.

  104. Scott,It seems to me that there is an unanswered question here, and maybe you can answer it, maybe you cannot.If Vista is delayed again, will we see an OS X version of CS3 come out anyway?

  105. Erasamus B. Dragin says:


  106. Chris says:

    I know folks who depend on Photoshop to get professional work done, but I’ve found the learning curve bad enough that I’ve never been able to make it part of my usual tool set. Updating the UI would of course confuse the existing user base, so I won’t plea for that.I do wonder why it is that Adobe’s apps that have functionality also offered by competitors’ apps (e.g., JPG rotation; PDF viewing) seem much slower on Apple’s system. I would have thought that with a code base tailored over time to solve specific graphic and display issues, Adobe would have a performance leader on its hands. Does Adobe have high performance that I’m missing?What’s really going on under the hood that makes picture size reduction, etc. so much slower than with competing apps?Good luck with the v3 work; I know there will be great demand for it when it ships.

  107. huxley says:

    CodeWarrior has thrown in the towel and is no longer competing with Apple in the IDE/compiler market. (Why would they?)

    Metrowerks threw in the towel the day they were bought by Motorola (now Freescale).

  108. clopez says:

    Nicely put, your honesty is (I believe) greatly appreciated.Just a couple of questions:Am I correct in assuming that Photoshop still has a HUGE amount of legacy 68k code int it?Why won’t Adobe release anything for Linux (except for the Reader, of course)?

  109. Marc Driftmeyer says:

    There are a lot of negative comments because back in 1997 WWDC when Carbon was first released to developers the writing was on the wall. Carbon was a negotiation between Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft and Apple. Nine years have nearly passed since its announcement. The developers are rarely in charge of making the business case decisions.With that being said it is clear that Adobe has not wanted to invest deeply into Apple’s direction and wanted to do the minimum required to keep their apps reflective of the revenue streams the Windows and Apple platforms produce relative to one another.However, years of not hiring seasoned Openstep developers to move your codebase into a Cocoa solution as part of R&D is a mistake and one fiscally they will feel. They will feel it in their stock price as well. Adobe has been anti-ObjectiveC from the start. Nothing has changed overall. I’m sure there are a few who want to use Cocoa.If they were really intelligent they could have driven 4 miles to Omnigroup in Seattle who have worked on Cocoa appsuites for ATT Wireless/McCaw and the hundreds of millions of lines of code that call center suite entailed and asked them how those teams [Platinum/Ubermind, Omni, Best and other grunts] pulled it off; and if possible could they consult with Adobe.Every company makes choices. Take the bullet early or delay it. History shows what delaying always provides.

  110. Rick Schaut says:

    Well put, Scott. Nice post. Just a few things worth adding:1) The relationship between the size of a code base and the amount of work needed to move that code base from one build system to another is not linear. It’s exponential. Twice the code means, roughly, ten times the amount of work. Larger applications are far more likely to make use of more esoteric language features, and involve much more complex build systems, than do small, or even medium-sized, programs.2) An important issue with XCode vis-a-vis large projects is the size of the default format for debugging information. STABS is very verbose. Combine that with the very large symbol names common in modern C++ programs, and the size of your debug build gets positively huge. I have it on very solid information that the debugging build of a very well-known Mac application (not the one on which I work) actually managed to hit the VM wall!

  111. Rick Schaut says:

    Mr. Driftmeyer,If this really is a Cocoa vs. Carbon issue, then why is the Finder still a Carbon app?

  112. Steve says:

    Thanks for the entry– very informative. I agree with whoever it was that said one great app is much better than two half-assed apps.I’m a Photoshop hobbiest and running PS with Rosetta has been fine for me. I understand it won’t cut it for a professional, but shouldn’t Pros be using PowerMacs anyway (obviously Intel PMs aren’t out yet)? And if you bought a MacBook Pro to make a living with photoshop, you knew what you were getting, so you really can’t complain.-Steve

  113. JR says:

    I appreciate the candor of the information you are providing in this BLOG. Thank you, it is insightful. However, this discussion misses a huge portion of the reality of Adobe’s slow porting of its suite to Intel Macs.First, like many large, upgrade and support revenue dependent software companies, Adobe simply isn’t very agile, and cannot move quickly to address significant platform changes like the PPC->Intel move, especially when they’re left in the dark by Apple’s secretive ways.Second, the inside-the-company reality is not pretty. Following Adobe’s Macromedia merger or acquisition (depends on your POV), the people inside the company are in the midst of playing a massive political and cultural war. Some of these battles are overt and ugly, others are subliminal and political. But, the simple fact is that a merger of competitors is a seriously nasty business, and no one inside Adobe will openly admit it.The net result is that Adobe’s productivity, vis-a-vis substantive product releases will take 2+ years of political infighting to recover from, and that’s if they do it well. What customers will come to see is a series of releases that are less substantive and more superficial.No one should blame the employee’s, who are simply living through a business decision that greatly affected all aspects of the organization, and all the way from UI standards to platform support.I’ve lived this nightmare, and I wish them well, partly because I’m a Mac user and I want their products to excel on my chosen platform, and partly out of respect for the difficulties of their circumstance.

  114. GccEmacs guy says:

    Why not simply use GCC + Emacs.That can handle large code bases.

  115. Allan White says:

    Scott, how has the Lightroom development experience informed other software group’s decisions? Lightroom looks like it was developed with Xcode, true?Put another way, has their experience translated into new in-house capabilities for other products?Great post, good info!

  116. Chris Cox says:

    Adobe has been working with Apple to make XCode useable for many years. But XCode never got to a point where it was a serious contender. So, Adobe went with the only choice that worked.Adobe is doing as much as possible, as fast as possible to make the MacIntel transition work — but there’s only so much you can do with tools that don’t work (yet).If you really think that is not the case, then you almost certainly are not trying to use XCode/GCC with a large application. Other companies with comparable applications are feeling exactly the same pain as Adobe (engineers do compare notes, ya know). A few companies have run into even bigger problems than Adobe has.Other tidbits:IPC/RPC – WAY too slow. We already looked into it a while back. We had a couple of similar ideas — all had too high a latency.Yes, a well known application (not mine, though) couldn’t launch debug builds with STABS because the binary and symbols took up the entire 4 Gig address space. I’d laugh harder if I didn’t know the engineers fighting with it. Apple is working (very rapidly) to solve the problem.No, Photoshop has no legacy 68K code, and hasn’t had any since the 68K macs disappeared.Cocoa – no, that would be an even bigger problem (for no user visible gains, and lots of user visible slowdowns and problems).Yes, as an engineer, it’s kind of painful to watch all the armchair quarterbacks with no actual knowledge of the situation make such ridiculous claims. But sometimes they’re pretty funny (kind of like watching someone learn to swim and proclaim that they’re ready for the Olympics). The problem is that you can’t always tell the experts from the n00bs based on their typing.

  117. Shane Ley says:

    I can’t believe I’m seeing so many of these comments. So many of you are idiots. No surprise there!Apple chose to make a platform change. But you don’t criticise Apple for this, instead blaming application developers like Adobe for Apple’s mistake.Believe it or not, but most software companies don’t give two hoots about Apple, and you should be thankful that Adobe actually do, but this doesn’t give Apple the right to demand they move their build environment to Apple’s build environment. Believe it or not, but the Windows version is AT LEAST as important, and I don’t blame them for one minute for not changing development tools and widget API’s to suit Apple’s demands. Any such move would also likely inhibit work on their upcoming product line for both platforms for the sake of Apple.Will you Apple whackjobs, for once in your lives, break free of the reality distortion field, and put the blame where it really deserves to be! You are giving Apple users a bad name.The very reason developers usually stay as far away from end users as possible is shit like this. I wouldn’t be surprised if Scott discontinued his very open posting on matters like this, to avoid flames from idiots like you people!Thankyou Scott for your open post. I’m sorry it turned into such a controversy.

  118. newcastle says:

    Adobe may not release a Universal version of Photoshop until mid-2007, company CEO Bruce Chizen told Forbes today.

  119. Mac says:

    It’s a bit hard to feel sorry for you for all the work you have to do, instead I feel sorry for your customers. Other comples/large systems have been moved to UB so I don’t see why PS would be different. You’ve known about this for quite some time, so get over yourselves and get us some UB apps allready.

  120. Blig says:

    Xcode can’t handle big apps?The Final Cut Suite is scheduled to be released in the next 5 days as Universal.Are you telling us that Xcode wasn’t used on Final Cut, Motion, Logic or Aperture (also due in the next 5 days)? I understand Apple may have had a huge head start on porting– but they’re using the tools.

  121. Dave Thorup says:

    Scott (and Chris),Thanks again for posting your insights into a very difficult transition process. It’s more humorous than anything to listen to the self-proclaimed experts at how easy the transition is and that Adobe is being so horrible to their customers. It’s annoying though that there are so many of them and none of them really have a clue what they’re talking about.The truth of the matter is that this is a very difficult and complex transition for many companies. Just because it was easy for one application does not mean that it will be easy for another. Also, many people think that just switching to Xcode is all you have to do and you’re done. Well, my friends, that just is not the case. That is only the first step, I say again, the FIRST step in a long and complex process.Now for those that think they know what they’re talking about you should really try listening to Scott, he knows what he’s talking about.In fact, for those that would like to know the real experts in the field you should read what Chris Cox, Rick Schaut & Apple Engineer have to say as well as Scott. They know what they’re talking about.

  122. ming says:

    Very nice post with lots of interesting comments. Obviously theres a lot of Apple users here. I agree that “Believe it or not, but most software companies don’t give two hoots about Apple, and you should be thankful that Adobe actually do, but this doesn’t give Apple the right to demand they move their build environment to Apple’s build environment.” Seriously, not only just me, but a lot of Photoshop experts users also in a way admit working on the Windows platform is a better experience (i.e. faster). It is a long myth that the PPC is better with Photoshop.Seriously, I do not understand why studios still choose Apple platform for “the” platform to use. Since it is almost guranteed that any great software will work as great if not better on the Windows platform rather than the Apple platform (if in the first place the great software builds for Mac also).

  123. I guess this tells how ‘innovative’ Adobe apps really are, amazing that there was that much junk left in. But hey, I guess you just used Photoshop to make a nice looking box, and then just put a new price tag on it! Really, complaining about this is silly, you make software, what the hell have you guys been working on? It doesn’t sound like you even have the flexibilty to create new software – let’s here it for the up and coming software houses, maybe instead of complaining they’ll make an app that’s worth 999$.

  124. TeeJay says:

    Can I please pre-order CS3 for min new Intel MacBook… Just to motivate you guy :)- Keep up the good work!Cheers,TeJay

  125. MacTruth says:

    Thank you Scott for your openess.As a mac user, I’m ashamed by the stupid reaction some people dared to published exposing their sheer stupidity to the world.You and some other devs, explain the whys and there’s still, down to the end of the thread people saying “Other comples/large systems have been moved to UB so I don’t see why PS would be different.”Don’t they actually know hhow to read ?I’m here to recall those people that no Apple Pro application is actually shipping. Even better, Apple will charge a fee, and a hefty one for them. They even dare to impose a fee for the just relleased aperture before backing off due to the bad press it already had (I think aperture is great but not ready for prime time yet).Moreover a 100% owned Apple company, FileMaker, will (as they support says) be universal binaries in their next paid upgrade.Moreover both aperture and filemaker shipped months after june 2005 !So, when Apple and filemaker, will charge you and will make you wait for a new universal binarie version, why are you slapping adobe.Even better, we all slapped adobe in the ppc transistion with griefs about some 68K legacy code lying somewhere. Uninformed people still think CS2 has some (while it doesn’t).We said adobe was doing minimal support.Now that they actually rewrite most of the stuff for good, something we all asked for, some of us ae actually sayying, please put somme ppc code in CS2 to be quick.Finally most of the complainers aren’t actually using photoshop in a pro fashion, the pro care about the job, the job is perfectly ok on their G5, and Quads. Their G5 didn’t stopped to work the day steve announced the intel transition (twhich is a good thing)

  126. coreen says:

    thankyou for clearing up my misconception. You did give the impression that part of the reason your transition is going slow was because of old and outdated code work arounds based on the 68k code. I stand corrected. As I am not an engineer I look at it more from a business standpoint. Photoshop and illustrator are the backbone of the media creation suite and i will look forward to using CS3 on my current intel based mac. Fortunately for me Rosetta does the job for now and there are other media creation options. i do still feel that you should place some kind of universal binary patch to make it less reliant on rosetta in the interim. Giving some kind of boost to the software as some kind of concession to you mac customer base.

  127. John C. Randolph says:

    Guys,For the record, Scott is quite familiar with Cocoa (or at least NeXTSTEP, I haven’t been in touch with him since I bought a NeXTSTATION from him something over a decade ago), and he’s certainly not the only person there who knows Cocoa.It’s true that starting from a clean sheet today, using Cocoa and CoreImage, one could write a far better product than Photoshop, but the fact is that Adobe has a massive installed base to consider. Releasing an app that replaces photoshop doesn’t suffice: they must also deal with all the third-party add-ons that their customers depend on.Adobe painted themselves into a corner, and didn’t move decisively to extricate themselves from CodeWarrior four years ago, probably because they didn’t have a crystal ball.It’s easy to bash them for a lack of foresight, but they are where they are, and they didn’t get into this situation just to piss people off. They made decisions based on the information available to them at the time.-jcr

  128. Alex Reid says:

    Neat; thanks for being so open about this. I have Elements, since my needs are nowhere near Photoshop level – I assume that the work on CS will make it much easier to port that.This is one important difference between Adobe (and, for that matter, Microsoft) and Apple is the way that both have embraced blogs as a wonderful way to keep customers in contact with the engineers who work on the product they use. Apple has held on to this idea that absolutely everything must be kept secret at all costs, even when it really isn’t necessary. Maybe for things like the unveiling of the latest iPod, but it’d be nice to know how their transition is going.

  129. NotAFan says:

    You lying prick, there’s all sorts of ways to get the current one working better, but you’re just going to sit on your ass, blaming XCode for your laziness.

  130. a non-pro user says:

    But really, it’s not as if people jump from expensive systems to expensive systems on a whim. There has to be a reason to switch. Seeing as there isn’t a new intel-mac tower to use with cs2. why not wait and get both together?

  131. dave says:

    dont you guys think maybe adobe / macromedia is going to do something a little more than port over apps into universal binaries?if they do an entire re-write, doesnt it give them the opportunity to really CLEAN things up? provide more hooks between apps.. or better yet, merge functionality?flash + illustrator/freehand = major excitment.flash + (some) director = bonerland.illustrator + photoshop = bonerland.ha. i said bonerland. do any of you people actually USE the apps the way ad agencies/designers/etc use them? you’re all talking like propeller heads! 🙂

  132. unixgeek says:

    I haven’t used Xcode for any large development, so I won’t try to defend it. However, I have to take issue with the implication that Visual Studio deals well with large projects. My employer’s primary software product only has about 10,000 source files, and it takes forever to load up in VS. (VS2005 is a bit better than VS2003, but it’s still much slower than it needs to be.) It also takes its sweet time walking through all of the contained projects just to determine that they are up-to-date.I have had way more than seven files open at once in Xcode, though, and there isn’t any noticable slowdown (at least on 2.2.1). Older versions of Xcode and ProjectBuilder were often unbearable with only a couple of files open, though.As for Rick Schaut’s comments regarding the debugging information: there is no need to build the entire product in debug at one time. I maintain the cross-platformness (five different Unices) of the above -mentioned product, and debugging information on any of these can easily be generated only on individual object files if desired. The first step I take for debugging any customer’s issue is to first try to replicate it on my Mac so that I don’t have to make a big debug product in Visual Studio, and wait the minutes it takes VS to link things. Xcode’s debugger is not as strong as Visual Studio’s, but it’s all based on gdb, so I can always get to what I really need.The key to all of this, on a large project, is to build the heavy part of the code in a command-line system. IDEs are nice for quickly bopping across files, but they are difficult to manage when a large number of files is in play. I find it very frustrating to attempt to deal with development on our Visual Studio projects, because it is so slow and makes it difficult to find the file I want to edit. (I can’t imagine how one would tolerate this in Xcode! At least VS keeps its targets in separate project files, so you can easily work with just a subset of targets.)When faced with the task of reorganising our build system five years ago, I toyed with making location-independent Makefiles, but I finally just switched over to Perforce’s freewave “jam”. I have found this to be a very scalable approach, and much faster than just about anything I’ve seen at determining dependencies.

  133. Checkout SlickEdit for developing on OS X. Yes, we run as an X11 app, but version 11–due out in early April–is being distributed as a universal binary. And we are reknowned for our ability to handle large applications.Email me at if you have questions.

  134. Forbes says:

    That Forbes article makes it sound like either your CEO is lying (and you accidently let the cat out of the bag: i.e., no universal version is actually forthcoming) or that you are out of the loop. Which is it, I wonder…

  135. MikeFM says:

    As a programmer myself it seems you could have written these programs to be more portable. I understand that Photoshop is a big and somewhat old program with parts that are probably closely tied to the hardware for speed reasons but I hope that this kind of move encourages you to clean your code up so that porting to additional platforms is easier.I’d not mind seeing a port of Illustrator to Linux and for an app designed to be portable it should be easy enough to do so that it could be profitable for you too.

  136. Pedro Estarque says:

    Thanks Scott for opening up.I’m very interested in the subject and I’ve been reading the ever increasing comments since your publish, but didn’t fell like commenting because I thought I couldn’t add much.But someone just said that bringing Photoshop to Cocoa wouldn’t bring any benefits to the user interface, so I had to step in.Photoshop on OSX always felt like a hack. You can’t minimize the pallets, and if you drag them, you get a dotted representation of it and not the full window, like in classic. It’s also one of the few apps that still shows the clock instead of the spinning beachball ( not that I like it, I still find the clock much nicer, only I doubt it was an aesthetic decision ). Besides, if you have a progress bar running you just can’t click on any other open window or anything at all. The entire app is stuck with it and you can only drag it or hit cancel.I’m not saying that this can’t be done in carbon, just that this API allowed for much of the legacy GUI code to run on OSX, and as such, leading to this old style behaviors. Had it been rewritten, we could get a lot of niceties for free, like spelling, dictionary, font panel…and who knows, maybe even a better screen redraw than the old quickdraw.

  137. jbondo says:

    C’mon Adobe, you must have known about the transition to Intel for a long time, and more importantly about Apple’s push towards Xcode! Because this situation is hurting Apple and its Intel transition, they must have told you. You’re saying they haven’t, and if that’s true, then Apple has made a big mistake.If they did tell you, then you’ve made a very bad decision by not investing the time sooner, and because of this bad decision, you’ve left the many users who want to switch to the platform of the future in the cold.Unfortunately, you’re sitting heavily on the market, so we don’t have any real alternatives. I hate monopoly!

  138. Simon says:

    Photoshop CS2 shipped before Apple even released an Intel-based system. Steve Jobs mentioned that it was going to be a hard transition for Metrowerks users. Adobe and Microsoft are the biggest Mac ISV’s and they both use Metrowerks. These are all good reasons why no Intel-native Mac Photoshop yet.Photoshop CS2 runs faster on a MacBook Pro than on a PowerBook G4 and that is what we have right now. So if you are running a MacBook Pro be happy that Photoshop is running at faster than G4 speeds (even if only barely). It is better than more PowerBook G4’s with 1.67 GHz processors. If you want a desktop machine you have quad G5’s to choose from for quite some time now. If you bought an Intel-based iMac or Mac mini to run Photoshop in 2006 then you are an ass. Nobody told you that you could do this. Nobody implied it was a good idea. The current Intel-based Macs are great for running Apple’s consumer software and everything else is in beta right now and for the next year or so.And when it’s all done it will have been an amazing transition that nobody would have believed possible just a few short years ago.Besides, if you really need native software now, somebody can just whip up a “Cocoa Photoshop Killer” in no time now that Adobe has stumbled, ha ha.

  139. Andrew says:

    Scott,Thanks for your open and honest post… It’s a hard job and there are a lot of people to please… it’ll be good to see a UB of photoshop soon and I’m sure all rational people accept that it’s not something you can turn around a quickly as some smaller apps.God speed. (whatever that means)

  140. I can appreciate Adobe’s position on this – we had no problem porting our core Valentina database technology to universal binaries, but most products the size and scope as Adobe’s can’t simply flip a switch; nor should they try. I imagine Adobe’s largest customers will wait until the second generation of MacIntels anyway and have an orderly transition.It is to Apple’s advantage to represent technology transitions to its customers as simple and painless, and its never the case. Ive had applications broken over “modest” .1 operating system updates – dont get me wrong, I think 10.4 is a solid piece of work – but many customers do not know what a road of broken glass there was getting to 10.4 from 10.1.Best regards,Lynn FredricksPresidentParadigma Software

  141. olmy says:

    Can anyone name an application of similar size and age as Photoshop that has released a UB already? I’m curious how they did it…olmy

  142. rkb says:

    Why work on an interim cludge. UB will(is) not be as fast / small as native. It is a transition itself. A convenience — one box fits all — not best for the user at all. Oh, and darwin folk were mysteriously compiling for dual core intel last may.

  143. Mike Downey says:

    First, thanks to Scott for being so open with Adobe’s customers. It’s great to see Adobe adapting to the new world of being very open about everything that you do. I hope to see more of this.I wanted to add my own comment on this comment made earlier in the thread:

    Second, the inside-the-company reality is not pretty. Following Adobe’s Macromedia merger or acquisition (depends on your POV), the people inside the company are in the midst of playing a massive political and cultural war. Some of these battles are overt and ugly, others are subliminal and political. But, the simple fact is that a merger of competitors is a seriously nasty business, and no one inside Adobe will openly admit it.

    As an employee who was deeply involved in the integration process before the close in Dec I’d have to say that this is far from the truth. I’ve been through several mega-mergers and the Adobe/Macromedia acquisition has gone astonishingly well. Adobe staffers share the same “DNA” as Macromedia staffers and the cultural differences aren’t very noticeable. Most long-time Adobians have even told me that Macromedia of last year was very similar to Adobe of five years ago.I assure anyone who cares that (from my perspective) the combination of these two creative companies has gone very well. There have, of course, been some painful moments for some people as well as some uncomfortable “political” situations common in any large company – but as a whole, the process has gone amazingly well.Mike Downey | Flash Product Manager

  144. Kurt says:

    I don’t blame Adobe for waiting at all. I am a member of our equipment committee for our department at my university and we just decided to hold off on upgrading 100 of our PowerMac G5’s for another two years before we purchase the Intel machines. I’m sure our decision is mirrored by many other large institutions. If we’re not buying the machines in large quantities, there is no reason for Adobe to rush the software out before it’s ready. By the time we purchase our Intel’s, we’ll be able to buy a Rev. B machine, with fewer problems, and get the new software with the bugs ironed out. Well worth the wait. Of course if Adobe had made this decision sooner (or at least announced it sooner – I’m sure the decision was made a while back), we might have only waited one year rather than two, but the Apple Care extension has already been purchased.

  145. James says:

    So the app is undergoing a massive change to an XCode that really isn’t ready for an app like Photoshop… I’m not going to gripe and complain about it taking time – it’s not Adobe’s fault that Apple went to x86, and I’m not masochistic enough to buy first gen Apple products – but I am wondering about what this means for CS3.Specifically, I want to know what we should expect in terms of code quality in CS3. CS2 has some nasty stability problems and bugs as it is – I see users getting the neverending beachball daily, many of the newer filters have annoying bugs (like the noise removal not previewing properly), and the app does tend to just flat-out crash now and then.Should we expect that during the change to XCode there will be some serious code inspection and tweaking, or will that have to wait so the devs can focus on adding more features to CS3? And since Adobe no longer releases patches to fix non-security bugs, is it a safe bet that we won’t see any major improvements in terms of annoying and stability-affecting bugs until CS4?

  146. Jud says:

    I am constantly amazed by how many people seem to think that Adobe and/or Microsoft can solve all of their ills by porting their code to Cocoa. There’s one really severe problem with any such idea. There are no production-quality tools for developing Cocoa code on Windows. There is tons of shared code that runs on both platforms. That code would either have to be ported to Cocoa as well (resulting in two completely different codebaes) or it would have to continue to be maintained in C++. The sane solution to the problem is that the code has to remain in C++.Apple has a couple cross-platform apps/technologies. iTunes and Quicktime come to mind. Last I heard, iTunes was Carbon and Quicktime basically implements most of Carbon on Windows. I could be wrong here, but I believe that Apple doesn’t have any commercial Cocoa code running on Windows.Regardless of how app A or technology B has been successfully ported to XCode or Cocoa, it mostly comes down to business decisions. Adobe and Microsoft would have been nuts to put in all of the extra effort a couple of years ago. Apple kept pushing people to move to XCode, but they gave no clues as to why. CodeWarrior, to this day is still superior at almost every aspect of PPC development. It is much faster (unless you have an army of machines available to do distributed builds) to compile, much faster to do a full link. It’s debugging tools up until recently were better, etc., etc. If Apple had told everyone why it was so crucial to move to XCode, then it might have been done sooner. Apple’s committment to secrecy prevents educated decisions from being made. Even now, after making it clear why the move was important, they still didn’t share with developers the true shipping date of the intel boxes. Even if Adobe turned on a dime and tried to get their stuff done by June, they would still be caught with their pants down when Apple decided to move the date up 5 months. Make no mistake about it, last May when Apple said June ’06, they knew that they would ship something sooner.Lastly, I find it really sad that people with zero experience with shipping apps as complex as Photoshop seem to think that they know better than Scott does. Really people, get a clue. Building very, very large apps is quite tough.

  147. Bluestix says:

    Its funny to hear Mac users whine about Photoshop not running in mactels.Why would Adobe rush to make a product compatible with systems that probably have less then .1% market share?I wonder how many of the Mac users who responded to your post hold on to that silly belief that “Macs are better for graphics”.While that may have been true 15 years ago its laughable now.Even with the switch to Intel, Macs are still not going to compare with PC’s on any performance benchmarks.They are closed systems and so by their nature cannot evolve as fast as PC’s.Intel isn’t even the performance leader in PC’s anymore. (AMD Opteron anyone?)To all the Mac users who think “Macs are better for graphics” — try running CS2 on a system with:-Windows XP x64-2 Dual Core AMD Opterons-16GB RAM-PNY Quadro FX 4500 Video Card-42″ WestingHouse Digital LCD MonitorThen tell me again how Mactoys are “better for graphics”.

  148. viperteq says:

    I’m sorry, Scott. While your post soes point out some interesting information, I have to say that, as a faithful Adobe user, I am not pleased. Every company that develops for the Mac OS platform was informed at the same exact time. At that moment, you should have started writing and testing. If Dell, HP, Compaq or Sony had announced that they were switching their hardware to SPARC processors, I’m quite sure that you would have had each and every one of Adobe’s apps ported and ready so that Window’s users could hit the ground running if and when they upgraded their systems.Yes, it is true that Apple will be charging users of their Pro apps to upgrade to the Universal versions, BUT Apple is only going to be charging at the most $60.00 USD and asking users to trade in their old PPC cd/dvd’s. Will Adobe be doing the same thing for CS3? No. Users will be forced to pay the same high prices that they usually have to pay to upgrade. And a 12-18 month wait is really un-acceptable. If anything, you could have written a Universal version of Photoshop/ImageReady and InDesign and waited for the rest of the programs for the next major upgrade. Instead we’ll be forced to sit the whole 12-18 months and for what? Bridge? Acrobat? Illustrator? GoLive? When you finally do have all of these programs ready to ship, will you be pressing the suits higher-up to offer a significant price break to compensate for the long development time? I don’t think that you will.Adobe has long favored the Windows platform over Mac OS and not producing a version of at least Photoshop to run on the new architecture is just another point to add to a rather long list.

  149. Tony Kavadias says:

    So, let me get this straight…… you (collectively) were able to get legacy Adobe Photoshop MPW code into CodeWarrior for compiling to PowerPC, then you were able to get the same legacy Adobe Photoshop code into Visual Studio for porting to Windows…… but you (collectively) are not able to do the same magical transformation of moving your legacy Photoshop code into Xcode for porting to Mac OS X and Universal Binary support…… nice try, but I think I know the REAL answer to your problems! And while Xcode may be a factor in your difficulty to move code from A to B, I think there’s more than that at stake!Can anyone say… “get off the Carbon APIs”? 😉 And believe me, that takes more effort than pushing Tasmanian Oak trunks up a forest hill!– tonza

  150. Joe Hourcle says:

    Some people here don’t seem to understand what the ‘change in tools’ comments about the swtich to XCode, and the pain it really is … so let’s put it into perspective, as something that a Photoshop user can hopefully understand –Imagine if your work forced you to switch to GIMP — it’s free, so it’ll save the company money, right? How much time will it take you t figure out where every last little command is, and what commands are missing that you’ll have to work around? How many unproductive man-hours would the company lose if it forced everyone to switch? All of your existing workflow — gone. Any macros or scripts — gone.Now imagine if you had all of your files stored in a format that the new program wouldn’t read natively — so you had to convert all of them before you could really get them going in the new program. (and that there either are no batch coversion programs available, or if there were, they intruduced subtle but significant mistakes that were unacceptable)This would be a roughtly analagous transition. Some of the other companies might not have had the ‘translation’ (ie, 68k code) issue, and others might not have years of accumulated scripts to mechanize their workdlow that they’d have to give up — but just because it’s easy for one company to switch, doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone else.

  151. Lakiopaalu says:

    Hmm. Interesting reading, this is.As a longtime Photoshop user but recent (convert from FreeHand) to Illustrator, I can’t help comparing Photoshop (beautiful app for 98% of time) to Illustrator (feels quite often as a badly ported app.).I can belive that there is no 68k code left in PsCS2, but what about Illustrator CS?

  152. Fred says:

    I’m gobsmacked.Never in my life, have I read such hilariously ill-informed tripe, attached to a blog entry.As a developer, I’m used to folk not really understanding the work that goes into producing software. That’s fair enough; it’s not their job.But some of the whining I’ve read here just takes the biscuit.Thanks for explaining the situation Scott, and keep up the good work.

  153. IonQuest says:

    Thanks for the HONESTY. We all could use more! I do run your PS Elements 3 on my PPC iMac to create great shadows.

  154. Anonymous says:

    Hasn’t Apple been telling developers for _years_ that they need to move to XCode?

  155. peekay says:

    For me, it was time to leave the Apple platform. Bought an HP workstation with a dual core AMD X2 processor running WinXP Pro. CS2 runs great on it. The rest of you can wait till 2007.

  156. rodney says:

    The complexity of moving to Xcode from Codewarrior is daunting for a large code. The only apps that are shipping universal binaries so quickly were already using Xcode, so the recompile was straightforward. Xcode is indeed getting better, but it is not quite a mature development environment compared with Codwarrior and MS Visual Studio. it would be stupid to back port CS2 to Xcode, Adobe is doing the right thing to put all effort into CS3. Also, I think it is going to be a while before an Intel Mac beats the latest G5 Quad by a significant margin – so the pros should be content to use their G5’s with CS2 in the interim.

  157. Jim Gagnon says:

    I see an awful lot of whining from the MacHeads about the delay in releasing a MacIntel version of PhotoShop. They should take all that whining and aim it at Apple. Their transistion to Intel is nowhere near the quality of their 68K-PPC transistion. Yeah, the Apple gearheads are moaning about how much of a kludge it would have been to allow code fragment support, but the real reason is that Apple simply wasn’t willing to pay for the engineering work necessary. Apple has failed to make the transistion painless, and they get to share the pain.Perhaps if Apple had better tools (Xcode does really suck), or pulled its head out and offered developers a way to preserve their investment across platforms. 4% of the market is not enough to support a software company, especially when that platform is from a company that is quite happy to drop technologies and leave their developers twisting in the wind. A developer’s code is their investment in the future, and Apple has shown time and time again that they don’t care about their developers’ futures.A developer today would have to have his head examined if they targeted only the Mac. The Mac crowd should be happy that PhotoShop still runs on their machine. Much more mucking around with the Mac’s processors and OS and perhaps some day it simply won’t make economic sense to migrate big apps like PhotoShop one last time.To be sure, the Windows world is laughing at Apple. Their copies of PhotoShop from the Windows 95 world still run just fine.

  158. Morten Thorpe says:

    Being a long-time Photoshop user and a somewhat capable programmer, I have to agree that Adobe isn’t doing anything real about Photoshop (PS)!Every update to PS since vers. 6 has been bloatware, where the intent for Adobe to make a quick buck is very clearly the main reason for an upgrade.So Adobe-coders – roll up your sleeves and get to re-coding PS from new raw code! Stop whining!!!

  159. Macc says:

    Hi Scott!Let me ask something: If you moves photoshop to cocoa, would it be a little faster? CS2 is very slow compared to CS1:( I still use CS1 for this reason, and some others (like the UNDO/REDO key changes, layer handling etc…)Sorry for my bad english.

  160. Jon Hendry says:

    Marc Driftmeyer wrote: “the hundreds of millions of lines of code that call center suite entailed and asked them how those teams [Platinum/Ubermind, Omni, Best and other grunts] pulled it off; and if possible could they consult with Adobe.”There is a huge difference between a call center suite and an app like Photoshop. For one thing, the call center suite probably divided all that code up among a number of applications, with only some of the applications running at a given time.Also, the performance issues are very different – the call center apps would be database-oriented, and communications with the database would likely be the major performance issue. Also, there probably wouldn’t be much of anything else running on the machine, and the company would have a great deal of control over the configuration of the hardware and what gets installed.I’ve worked on a different (and smaller) NeXTSTEP/OpenStep call center suite, and also an OpenStep fedfunds/eurodollar trading system, and I have no illusions that those architectures could be applied to an application like Photoshop.

  161. Dave Z says:

    There is one question I must admit to having – the fate of Dreamweaver, which has not really been addressed here. I realize Photoshop really needs the speed, but using Dreamweaver on compelx pages under emulation is annoying at least. Can there be a separate schedule for Dreamweaver, or will we see GoLive and Dreamweaver merged together into one great big unusable (I mean “feature-filled”) package?I have licenses for each because each has good and bad points…I wonder if this’ll be like the old speculation in the 1970s of “wouldn’t it be great if Ford and Chrysler merged, so we could have Ford bodies and marketing with bulletproof Chrysler powertrains.” Of course I always assumed it would end up with Ford powertrains and Chryselr bodies and marketing…Any answer to the Dreamweaver question would be appreciated, and yes, I do understand your quandary. Oh, and as for CodeWarrior…I really ahve to wonder that Steve didn’t buy them out, or at least try.

  162. Gabriel says:

    I totally agree with your post. As a CS2 owner, I don’t see why Adobe should have to give me a free upgrade for computers that didn’t even exist when I purchased the software. I look forward to using CS3 and an even faster Mac in the future.Thanks for your posting.

  163. Timmy says:

    A company like Adobe could go broke trying to keep up with Apple. Symantec lost years worth of effort developing for Copland, which Apple killed off with pretty much zero notice. On the other hand, I’d really like to have PS run on Intel now, not next year.

  164. MalEbenSo says:

    Scott, thanks for your posts, and patience.You’re making some customers a lot happier. The others mostly seem to have set their mind anyway. So nothing to lose here.You refer to “optimizing” solely as in “running on Intel CPUs natively”.But other readers have already asked before: What about Core Graphics?Generally: Now that CS3 is re-done on a larger scale, will Adobe also maintain a more OS-open approach of their codebase?In terms of platform agnosticism: Facilitating a Linux version?In terms of platform appreciation: Facilitating support of OS-specific technologies? (e. g. OS X Core Graphics, Text System, QuickTime, AppleScript, … Windows OLE, Scripting, ADS, …)?(I know that some of these, such as AppleScript, are already supported. Read “facilitate” as in easier to introduce and maintain and thus more likely to be actually rolled out.)

  165. Anonymous CIO says:

    Unfortunately Apple more than 2 years ago at WWDC put developers on notice that Xcode was the way to go for future development. While the direct connection to an Intel transition was not made — the discussions clear directed developers to at least begin porting to that platform.Adobe is now more concerned with integrating the Macromedias suite into the product line than meeting the needs of its professional customers. Current customers are more than willing to wait for that integration if it means being able to run CS on current machines. The delay comes down to revenue generation. Adobe knows they’ll have a hard time selling the Universal binary update if they don’t add in Flash. (What they do not realize is that the users doing interactive/Flash work are not the same as the print producers working in InDesign.)The truth is that if Adobe does wait until Q2 2007 — a full 6 months longer than most expect to be able to buy PowerPC machines — they will be walking in the same missteps as Quark did with the OSX transition. They will also effectively halt any further transitions from Quark to InDesign.

  166. libertyforall says:

    Adobe should consider buying Lighthouse Design’s suite which SUN has never used since they bought the company: consider buying Stone’s suite: NEXTSTEP/OpenStep/Yellow Box/Cocoa OO programming model is something Adobe and Microsoft have never seemed to figure out the true benefits of.It just goes to show, the true innovators are the smaller more nimble companies…

  167. Eytan Bernet says:

    I am under the impression that Adobe uses a sophisticated in house built cross-platfrom application framework which they then use throughout their product family. I imagine you need to move that framework over from Metrowerks to XCode, and then migrate the rest of your code, all the while not breaking the ability of the framework to:1. Work cross platform and within Visual C, and2. Work on the other applications and not, say, work for PhotoShop but break for Illustrator….and probably now also….3. Work for the Macromedia product line going forward.NO small nor enviable task. To be honest, I commend you for trying, discussing it openly, and getting something for us for even next year. Job well done.(No, I do NOT work for Adobe nor own Adobe stock – I am just a software development and have a clue as to what effort this is…)For all those bitching “Look at all the Universal software already available”, all they have to ask themselves is:How many of these products started their lives in MPW in 68k, migrated to Metrowerks, PPC, and then OSX, all the while being maintained cross platform, vs. developed ON the Mac, FOR the Mac ONLY, and developed in XCode under OS X? You will find that the LARGE MAJORITY, if not all of the applications that have gone universal binary are Mac only or Java based applications, and most started their lives as OS X applications.

  168. notaphotoshopuser says:

    Firstly, let me say that I am not a Photoshop user so I shall try to be objective.I guess, whilst everybody appreciates your openness and honesty, the more cynical people are asking “where is the loyalty?”. The problem is that you really have had time to prepare – and we all know this.All the PowerPC iMacs have now been discontinued. Adobe are really forcing the hands of people and giving them 3 options. 1) Buy old PPC machines 2) Buy new Intel machines and loose productivity by being bogged down in emulation or 3) Move away from Adobe altogether.Mac users have arguably been the most loyal users of Photoshop since its inception. So you guys better come up with the goods quickly before all the PPC machines are gone for good. Maybe Mac users are getting tired of the same old rhetoric.

  169. John McEnerney says:

    To everyone who is screaming that Apple has been telling everyone for 5 years that they should switch to XCode:If any software developer had followed all of Apple’s recommendations for how to develop software for the Macintosh over the years, it would have gone something like this:(1) Buy a Lisa and use the Lisa Workshop to develop your application in Pascal, then copy it over the to the Macintosh via floppy and debug in assembly language via MacsBug[During this era, most Macintosh apps were written and debugged source-level on a Macintosh using THINK Pascal or THINK C](2) Buy MPW and develop your Pascal application on the Macintosh and debug in assembly language via MacsBug, and a little later, in source-level via SADE(3) Rewrite your application in Object Pascal and MacApp(tm) because “MacApp will eventually become part of the operating system”[In this era, most apps were being written in THINK C and the THINK Class Library](4) Rewrite your application in C++ and use C++ MacApp which was more powerful and would be the only supported version for future OS features; don’t forget to rewrite your application to use OpenDoc and other vital Apple technologies[Sadly, in this ERA Symantec started losing customers by being late to the game with C++](5) Buy an RS/6000 from IBM and use a completely new compiler from IBM to build your apps for the new PowerPC-based macintoshes. To be fair, Apple bought and loaned many RS/6000s to their key developers.[Most developers used Metrowerks “development” (not even alpha) release and got their apps to market sooner. Many new developers used Metrowerks PowerPlant framework but Metrowerks provided support for existing THINK Class Library applications in both C and Pascal]This was the state of affairs for quite some time until Mac OS X, which from a historical perspective only represents 25% of the total Macintosh era.(6) Rewrite your application in Objective C and Cocoa, using gcc tools (and eventually XCode). Note that the most productive Apple tools only work for Cocoa.[Can anyone guess how long it would take to rewrite the Adobe apps in Cocoa?](7) “Just recompile” for X86The history of Tools at Apple is one of constant revolution, leaving behind not only 3rd party developers, but their own internal developers as well: much of Mac OS and many Apple professional applications are not using Cocoa, and many products were, until recently, still developed using Metrowerks CodeWarrior.Now it happens that somewhere between (5) and (6) if you had switched from CodeWarrior to XCode, you’d be ready for (7). But that would be the only time in history that Apple’s recommendation to 3rd party developers was the right one.Now consider that, even today, XCode cannot build the largest applications that some 3rd parties have, and their tools team has been working faster and harder than ever before.You really cannot fault Adobe or Microsoft for, 5 years ago, not diving head-first into a substantially inferior toolchain that could not realistically be used to develop applications of their sizes on a daily basis, because one day 5 years later Apple would make an unanticipable decision (and one that was by no means assured even two years ago when the G5 was touted as the Next Big Thing) that would require it.If Adobe and Microsoft were -that- important to Apple, perhaps Apple could have given them a little more notice.

  170. Paul says:

    I think it all comes down to money and politics. Sure, there are technical reasons, but there will also be technical reasons. Technical problems are solved with money. More engineers equals more money. If there was a compelling reason to port CS2 to UB, Adobe would have done it. Period. The fact that they havent, says there isnt. And thats where we come to politics. Could it be that Adobe know something about up coming Apple products that maybe will compete with their own products?Its not a huge leap to imagine how many companies who are in their hardware buying cycle now would make the switch to Windows – where they’ll be nicely out of reach of Apple when (if) Apple release a competing product, that we all know will be MACOS only.

  171. Thanks for this Blog post, Scott. Take it slow and do it right…

  172. David says:

    It was obvious to anyone that has any experience with IT projects that Jobs’ “just push the button” was wildly inaccurate for large app’s with legacy code. It was just Steve blowing smoke up people’s backsides as he is so good at doing, frankly.Of course many little app’s, that would be shallowed inside a big app like Photoshop, can be easily ported. I was amazed at how uncritically many pple accepted Stevie’s demo. Yes, it’s that easy for stuff that doesn’t really matter. However, for the app’s that do, such Photoshop or Office, it will be tough and expensive. And yes, firms are doing the conversion along with the next launch cycle to minimize cost, and maximize customer acceptance of the next product cycle. That’s business.

  173. Peter da Silva says:

    Adobe has had since 1997-1998 to get over this humpThis makes Microsoft’s faffing around with Windows Vista look like shockingly rapid development. Apple had Rhapsody on Intel in 1997, and was clearly getting geared up for this switch back then, and Adobe dug in their heels and said “we won’t port Photoshop to Yellow Box”.Apple put Rhapsody back for 2 years, came out with OS 9 and Carbon, and gave Adobe six or seven years to get up to speed on the UNIX side before finally pulling the last dregs of horrible old classic Mac OS out of there.What the hell?

  174. I’m glad I didn’t spend a thousand dollars for a couple applications that aren’t even ready for the latest platform. I think people would feel more sorry for Adobe if they charged less for their products.

  175. The Toe says:

    Scott, all that you say makes a lot of sense from an engineering standpoint and even from a corporate standpoint.Now look at what the buyer’s standpoint is.Imagine a graphics firm, for example. They now face horrible choices:1. Keep their computers frozen at 2005 technology until 2007, and hope their competitors do the same.2. Update their computers to speed up most of their tools, but slow down their most critical tools (and hope their competitors do the same).3. Spend a lot of money migrating to Windows, which is a catastrophic experience for a Mac user (not exaggerating at all… many artists would quit before switching), and which invites security breaches, etc. into their operation, not to mention requiring massive increases in IT spending to support that piss-poor OS.4. Stop doing business for a year or two.5. Start investigating new tools that will run well on modern equipment.Which do you think they are likely to do?By telling your customers — for whatever reason — that they just have to suffer for a year, you are shouting from the rooftops that you want competitors to start taking ground.How do you think InDesign got footing? Didn’t you notice that it was because Quark wasn’t keeping up with the times?CS2 = Quark 4Just because Macromedia is gone doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of other sharks in your tank.I, for one, am now looking for replacements for all my Adobe apps. Including Dreamweaver, for that matter.

  176. John Engler says:

    Just wanted to say thanks for communicating… I may not like what I’m hearing, but I totally applaud you for telling us the truth… it’s very refreshing and speaks well of you, and of Adobe for allowing you to do so. Thank you. – John

  177. Colin McInnes says:

    There is a third alternative, although I’m not sure how far Adobe explored it. And that is to pressure Metrowerks to develop UB support. That’s the ONLY reason everyone’s been forced to switch to Xcode, is because Metrowerks, which has been the staple of mac developers, has so far not touched UB support. So if you want to make Universal Binaries, you HAVE to use Xcode, because that’s all that’s available…I think Motorola may be doing this on purpose, to get back at Apple for dropping the PowerPC and going with Intel… They’ve really only screwed themselves, because from now on, until someone else develops a coding package, everyone will use Xcode. And we all know how hard it is to migrate from one package to the other once you’ve developed your entire line in a particular app…Then again, maybe Apple should have taken Metrowerks lack of action into consideration, and developed a migration package, just in case Metrowerks decided to not make the transition.

  178. Brant Sears says:

    I’m not all that familiar with the current version of Photoshop, but I am a Mac developer who has an appreciation of the effort involved.Does the current CodeWarrior project produce a Mach-O binary? If so, is it possible to get Metrowerks to update CodeWarrior such that it can produce a Universal Binary? I would think it would involve updating their compiler to produce a different dialect of assembly…but don’t they already have a version of CodeWarrior that produces X86 assembly? (i.e. the Windows version?)Or is Metrowerks totally out of the Mac tools business?

  179. Blunt says:

    Adobe has essentially nerfed their CS2 sales by admitting that a native CS3 won’t be out for some time. They need to come out with a serious upgrade strategy, along the lines of “buy CS2 now, get CS3 later for a drastically reduced price”.My only comment on the old code discussions is that it sounds suspiciously like Adobe has been repackaging the same old stuff into new versions, and just making them barely compatible with new operating systems. The consumer buys the expensive upgrade and gets very little features and improvements that are actually new.That being said, I think Apple needs to be taken to task for the huge changes it is continually making that affect their developers AND customers. If Adobe said that they would no longer produce for the MacOS platform, I would completely understand that decision. It would serve Apple right for being so arrogant.

  180. k. trout says:

    I feel your XCode pain, and here are my observations:1. Sub-par debugger. No context sensitivity for examining in-code variables. It also frequently can’t display values that are in scope let alone those that aren’t.2. Horribly sluggish editor (often pauses blocking typing for a second or two). Slow to open files.3. Break points sometimes inexplicably disappear after debugging session4. Poor breakpoint management tools.5. Confusing configuration management (e.g. ‘debug’ vs ‘release’) – constantly changes with each new release.6. Slow debug startup on medium size apps.7. Code Sense often doesn’t work until you restart Xcode.8. Poor API documentation (lacks organization, robust cross references, depth and clarity)9. Sometimes looses track of what’s been touched when building, and same thing when changing options for active target.I could add another half dozen or so. Suffice it to say Xcode is roughly the quality of other free (read poorly maintained, buggy) IDEs I’ve worked with. For large projects, it’s inferior to Apple’s ancient MPW Workshop. It’s way behind Microsoft tools especially the debugger.It’s very colorful however – lot’s of pretty icons.

  181. Brendan says:

    This is crap. You couldn’t move from metroworks because xcode was holding you back? You don’t *have* to use xcode, xcode isn’t the compiler. Use make, use some other make tool, write your own… Are you telling me that the build tools available on unix systems weren’t good enough? because that *isn’t* a belieavable argument.For the amount of money people are paying for your product, and the number of people buying it, we should be able to expect more support, not excuses. The technical problems are hard, but with the resources that adobe has, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t have already been solved.Some people who don’t know better might be placated by your excuses, but when an update doesn’t come out until 2007, the entirely reasonable conclusion that most people are going to make is that your company is run by greedy bastards that want to force an expensive upgrade.

  182. This whole situation is a complete farce.We’re only a small design company and one of our G4s has packed in. So we can either scrabble around trying to get one of the last G5 iMacs and suffer obsolescence, or take the plunge with an Intel one. We cannot get a straight answer how well Rosetta runs CS – I’ve all sorts of answers like ‘it’s fine, as long as you’re not a professional’ and ‘it takes a minute to start up Photoshop’. All the Macs at our local Apple Store were conspiciously not loaded with Adobe products, unlike the G5 towers. Can anyone here tell me precisely how things run on Rosetta in comparison with the same software on a slowish 700Mhz G4?How the hell have Apple been beavering away for year’s in their secret x86 HQ and not told Adobe or Quark? Apple and Adobe are so integral and vital to each other that this situation is akin to Microsoft Windows’ team rewriting the lot and not telling any other MS department.Apple has released these Macs a year too early.

  183. Jeff says:

    1) Thank you2) Thank you for Adobe for having the courage for open discussion. Cluetrain lives…3) I appreciate the hard work and wish to purchase Adobe products in the future.4) No problem paying for next versionHowever…Now to my rant:Understand the issues but I am in business. Thus, I will find was every app works so I can make money.I’m loyal to a point. That point is where I am not making money.So:1) Elements available native soon? Most functions are there that I need production-wise? Something else for the next year?2) InDesign? As mentioned earlier – it was rewritten more recently. Otherwise Quark can take back the marketshare that InDesign took away. Quark has seen the light and looks to be more responsive.Look if Quark, of all the companies, can do it… then Adobe has serious issues with Apple. Or serious case of not planning ahead…3)Illustrator – Please, please please rewrite that SOB. Take the best aspects of Freehand & Flash and mix it up. It’d be happy to wait for this to be intelligently redone.The problem here is this stupid Suite idea. It was a dumb idea to force us all into Suites. I hate it.How did you get there? Please ask how it benefits the customer buy forcing us to by a bloated Suite? To keep the GoLive guys employed?Put the proucts out when they are done, not but your artificial idea of what is good for the customer…Again thank you Adobe for giving us the chance to communicate directly with you.And thank you Scott for taking the time out of your hard work to talk to us. We complain a lot but that’s customers for you…

  184. I run Windows Photoshop CS2 on AMD 64 X2 dual core with 2 gigs Ram. When I compared Photoshop on Mac Intel Duo Core it ran very slowly in comparison. I will hold off buying a Intel Mac until Creative Suite CS3 is ready to put the Intel hardware to work.

  185. Michael says:

    I am so sick of Adobe’s products. As a designer myself i can’t stand using your products as they have become so counter productive. I mean how long do i have to wait for photoshop to load – erhm take a leaf out of macromedia’s flash’s book – near instant loading please – yes loading while i am alive. NOT TO MENTION ALL THE BLOATEDNESS OF PHOTOSHOP. Then we have illustrator – easier to draw with my feet – try Macromedia Freehand and since you are swallowing them up please put some of the nice features into it – also can i please have a paste in place command in photoshop like i have in flash – can i have non destructive editing please – can i object orientation as opposed to having every bloody thing in layers all the time.I don’t like your applications at all and you have become a company that produces nothing but rubbish (i remember a time when adobe was innovative) – i’ll add to microsoft and disney. Why did you ceo stand up and say that you would ubs shipping by now? Nothing but a bunch of greedy suits.Adobe is really really pathetic.

  186. J. A. Hay says:

    So, yes, it is complicated to write software… Isn’t that why we pay so much for it and for the upgrades? You’ve had time to be further along than it sounds that you are.No one wants a shoddy rushed interim piece of software, but it would be nice if you valued your customers enough to make this a priority. My sense with Microsoft and Adobe software developers is that when you are the accepted standard, you don’t have to accomodate customer needs or wishes.As a long-time customer and as an Adobe stockholder, I am quite annoyed. I believe the delay has much to do with a desire to pay back Apple for Aperture and to allow more time for Adobe to get its own competing piece of software in order. If that isn’t the case, maybe some of the software engineers working on those beta versions of “Light Room” could be put to better use in speeding up delivery of the new version of Photoshop.

  187. Gerrit DeWitt says:

    Mr. Byer:I am glad to hear that you and the rest of Adobe are working on a Universal Binary version of Photoshop, and I think that having a more stable CS3 product is superior to rushing a half-baked CS2 patch into the market.With that said, I hope that the Creative Suite CS3 line is better tested than the CS2 release. Although I believe that the CS2 products offer better features than their predecessors, but there are some rough edges with all of the products involving how they interact with various filesystems. In short, there are two areas that must be improved: (a) Save/Save As reliability and (b) application temporary/preference file management.(a) With Photoshop CS2, saving documents to mounted AFP volumes often results in an insufficient privileges error; in fact, there are problems with saving to other network and local filesystems as well. This error can be generalized, and I believe that I’m correct in stating that Photoshop CS2 can only reliably save to volumes that use the either Mac OS Extended [HFS+] or Mac OS Extended (Journaled) [Journaled HFS+] filesystem.I find this particularly tedious to explain to my clients, especially when Adobe Photoshop CS worked just fine. I often leave Photoshop CS (8) after installing Photoshop CS2 for reliability. And, Illustrator CS2 does not have this problem (although InDesign CS2 does have a similar one), indicating that there are some significant differences in the Save/Save As procedure used by Adobe CS2 products. That’s very discouraging.I know that Apple has made changes to the AFP filesystem with Mac OS X 10.4, including support for an Effective Permissions Model, which includes support for Access Control Lists. That must introduce some changes to how your Save/Save As procedure works.However, Photoshop CS3 should be able to reliably save to the following filesystems, at the least: Mac OS Extended [HFS+], Mac OS Extended (Journaled) [Journaled HFS+], Apple Filing Protocol 3.2 [AFP] and Common Internet Filesystem [CIFS/SMB]. Support for Xsan 1.2 filesystems, Mac OS Extended (Case-sensitive, Journaled), and Windows FAT filesystems would be beneficial, but not critical.Saving to AFP volumes becomes critical with network home directories. Even though I know Adobe’s position in the past has been that Photoshop files need to be saved on local volumes, that reasoning no longer suffices. Even a small Gigabit Ethernet network can sustain 50MB/s (megabytes per second) or more (peaking at 125MB/s), which approximates the speed of a local serial ATA hard disk (sustaining 50MB/s, peaking to 192MB/s).(b) Why doesn’t Adobe Photoshop CS2 use /private/tmp for its working space (scratch space)? Instead, I find a number of folders with random names located in the user’s ~/Library/Preferences folder, and Photoshop CS2 is the cause. When ~/Library/Preferences is located on the network (network home scenario), these folders often don’t go away; they have to be deleted periodically by hand.Please use either ~/Library/Caches/Adobe for saving scratch disk information, or use /private/tmp. It would make system administration much better for many of your customers.Thank you for all of the insight you’ve provided. I hope that my observations will help you to create a better Photoshop CS3 product in an era where Aperature and Gimp are catching up quickly.Sincerely,Gerrit DeWittApple Certified System Administrator

  188. Zvonimir says:

    As Bruce Chizen said recently (Forbes interview);”Acrobat is coming in the fourth quarter of 2006. [Design software package] Creative Suite 3 will be introduced in the second quarter of 2007.”For me, this is sound and good decision, and gives some time to Adobe developers to make better products that ever.When considering all those changes on the market that Creative Suite will face:* Windows Vista coming out early 2007. Gotta be sure Creative Suite runs well on new Windows too.* Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is also coming out early 2007. Same as with Vista — better to wait for Leopard and polish problems before they arise.* Creative Suite apps have to be ready for Intel Macs too, and best way to test their perfomance is to wait for new Intel based Powermacs coming out somewhere in September/October 2006 (surely not before). Graphics market is still dominated with PowerPC based Powermacs, so the transition will be slowish in the beginning anyway.* Integration of all Macromedia technologies in Creative Suite needs some time too. It’s not an easy job.By delaying and brushing up new PowerMac development Apple is also buying Adobe some time to make even better apps. 2006 may not be very prosperous, but 2007 will be absolutely awesome for Adobe. Way to go!

  189. Cheesemaster says:

    Mr. Chizen really shouldn’t have said “The only question I have, Steve, is what took you so long?” at WWDC last year. I think that set the stage for unrealistic expectations on porting times.

  190. Larry3 says:

    Scott, back in the late 90s I used Photoshop 3.0.1 on SGIs.So Adobe was shipping Photoshop on at least 3 OSs – Mac, Windows, and Irix, and at least 3 hardware platforms (big-endian and little-endian).This would seem to imply that platform dependent code was fairly well isolated and there was a substantial amount platform independent code.Is this no longer the case?Granted the version of Photoshop for Irix cost an order of magnitude more than the versions for Windows and MacOS, but to make it practical to support all three platforms I’d think software engineering issues relative to making code portable to new platforms had already been adressed in a fairly reasonable fashion.

  191. jennifer says:

    So MacTruth thinks that anyone who disagrees can’t read. Nice — anyone who doesn’t hold identical opinions to you is illiterate, is an idiot, etc. etc. How is that acceptable, again?As for the people who refuse to blame Adobe at all — there’s blame here — the Intel transition had been rumored for months, Apple has been trying to get developers onto Xcode for years, and Photoshop itself has needed refinement and speed improvement for years.But Apple is to blame, too — it didn’t warn anyone of such a major change, it didn’t give anywhere near enough pre-announcement support to major app developers (the developers of the apps used most), and it hadn’t done enough pre-transition to answer the pent-up demand for laptops that could run Photoshop, etc., at acceptable speeds, instead plugging along with the slow, outdated Powerbook G4.Is it any surprise that there is so much anger that now that the hardware problems have been at last fixed, the software is now causing people to have to twiddle their thumbs even longer? And then to find that they’re going to have to fork out even more money to get the speed boost they should have had years ago if they didn’t want to be tied to a desk?But in the view of the ad hominem fallacy I mentioned previously, I guess the fact that I’m actually holding everyone to task means that I’m illiterate even though I could read and write at college level in grade school …

  192. DBA photo says:

    why would a heavy Photoshop user buy a Mac Book Pro before Universal PS version is available??? seems like they are just creating difficulties for themselves.and to the guy who wonders why more studios are not using PCs……if you have to ask you need to learn more!!

  193. Natalie says:

    I’m not a developer, just an artist/graphic designer who depends on Adobe apps like Photoshop and Dreamweaver etc. I now find myself deep in the proverbial merde because I rashly listened to the Irish-accented blarney from those nice Apple salespeople on the phone. A couple of weeks ago I was about to order an iMac G5 to replace my 6-year old G4 PowerMac desktop but I was persuaded to go for the iMac Intel instead. The salesman said G5s were being phased out and everything Apple would be Intellified very soon. What about the incompatibility issue with Adobe apps, I said? Irish eyes smiled and said No Problem: they won’t run any slower than on your old G4 using OS9.2 (which I was still using, happily). Then he said that if I bought extra memory plus a graphics card, this would make everything ok. So I was reassured and went ahead with the order. Need I go into detail? I don’t know how many of you were led astray like me and are now banging your heads against the wall because Photoshop CS2 most certainly does *not* perform normally on Intel and Dreamweaver MX2004 is acting like a drunken sailor. What’s more, my state-of-the art fresh out-of-the-box iMac Intel has, wait for it, a manufacturing defect! It will be replaced by another one but meanwhile, I’m still grinding my teeth to dust over the Adobe issue. What I want to know is: why don’t Apple sales, and Adobe, make sure that customers who depend professionally on those apps are given full and detailed warnings regarding the current problems? Instead of pushing me to buy an Intel now, I should have been advised to wait a year until the Universal versions of Adobe were ready.This needs to be more widely publicised. Now, does anyone know of any graphics apps similar to Photoshop and/or Corel that I could use right now, which would be compatible with Intel and Mac Tiger? If so, I’d much appreciate hearing about it by email, if possible (remember to remove REMOVETHIS).

  194. Paul says:

    Hey, it doesn’t matter now. You mac-intel whiners complaining that your expensive hardware isn’t being supported can boot windows up, and run it at native speeds in windows.Tough sh*t if it isn’t OSX ready for intel-macs. What do you expect with a complete overhaul of archetechture?Leave it all to calm down for a year or so, and you’ll be well away.You had £1500 to blow, and you bought it too early. Not everyone is going to bring out universal binaries that quickly. Buisness is buisness, and Adobe are one of the ones that realise they can make a substational amount on this because you’re forced to use their product, and will have to pay for the priveledge of some technicians debugging the compiled code.Why should they put through a whole testing process some new software (ok, not recoded completely, but still put through testing – which takes personell – which in turn costs money), for some rich ponce who’s spent £1500 on a laptop/iMac and expects the upgrade for free?Why, oh why, should Adobe be footing the bill for something Macintosh themselves should be dealing with?You bought the new equipment, you knew nothing was ready before you bought it. You made the mistake in presuming they’d code for it.

  195. rpd says:

    What people complaining don’t seem to realize is that converting CS2 to Universal first would probably delay CS3 by 6 months (my guesstimate). And even if Adobe did a universal CS2, they would probably have to charge separately for it. And to the people who say “get coding” – coding is probably less than 25% of the effort/cost involved. Testing/Validation/Documentation/Manufacturing will easily be three times the cost of the code changes.

  196. Brian says:

    – Surely I’m not the only pro Mac user still running a G4 system. So how does Dual-Core Intel/Rosetta Photoshop performance compare to 1GHz G4 performance?It’s similar performance (in some really repetitive actions I’ve found it faster.) I just got an intel iMac delievered over the weekend (Boot Camp helped the decision as I work in both worlds on a daily basis.) Granted, I put 2GB RAM in the iMac and I’m comparing it to a Mac Mini 1.25 with 1GB, but I was shocked how well Photoshop runs in Rosetta. After reading various boards and comments I was expecting something aweful, but it’s definitely as fast as the Mini is capable of. I know running side-by-side with a dual G5 it’s going to get blown away, but if you’re currently running apps on a PowerBook, iBook, G4 or G4 mini, you’re not going to see any lapse from Rosetta. It run surprisingly quick and offers ample performance. Additionally, Rosetta is completely seemless. There’s no delay in launching (pshop actually launches MUCH faster in Rosetta on my iMac than on my mini) or interface actions, etc. Unless you’re used to running non-Univeral apps on a PwerMac G5, you won’t even realize you’re in Rosetta at all.

  197. Fusil says:

    Adobe is a company, not a charity. If you want someone to do something for free, go stand in the Welfare line.They’re out to make a buck, and you can’t make money by responding to customer needs for free — you have to keep them on the upgrade treadmill.Keep running, Forrest! Run!

  198. printsman says:

    I use Xcode, deal in WebObjects and C-Obj, etc, but I’m not going to address that issue. If Adobe wanted it done that badly, it would have been more of a priority. Plain, pure, and simple.I want to talk the prime difference between platforms: Color management.I must say that those who use only Windows Photoshop have never known the joy of color management with ColorSync. This is why the professional Photoshop standard still resides with Mac. As long as Microsoft refuses to license ColorSync, Mac will still rule the industry. sRGB is garbage by comparison, and the pros know it. Yet all the Windows user have the audacity to say in ignorance that Windows Photoshop is actually better than Mac Photoshop, without ever once broaching on color management.When Adobe changed the default native color profiling to please the Windows market, they delt the biggest blow to the loyalty of the decade plus Mac/Adobe users in the industry. Since then, you can’t find a Mac/Adobe who doesn’t feel a bit betrayed. The flood of inferior color profiles is making the printing business a royal pain.Believe me, the Mac users remember which platform created Adobe, even if Adobe does not. Personally, I’m surprised that Adobe is still producing anything for Mac. (Technically, they don’t, they make it for Windows and then port to Mac.) It can only be that the bi-platform image makes them more Windows dollars.Create in XCode and port to Windows for a change? Give me a break. Never happen.I’m just surprised that someone hasn’t jumped in yet to take their place in the Mac world. A true native OS X alternative would certainly be welcomed in the industry.

  199. David Luftig says:

    Very Informative post. My question of doI get a new computer is answered. No! notyet. Whew!I am a professional photographer and I lovethe Raw file functionality of PS CS2. I also love the peace of mind of not getting Viruses. All my friends& family in Windows have had major problems with V’s.I can now focus on getting better at PS for a year or so.I run a powerbook G4 with 1gig memory (which for some 300mb files doesn’t even seem enuf.)I print large panoramas, any chancethe new CS3 could go past the 7 ft limitwithout using RIP software (which I cannotjustify, yet)?I also run PS CS1 on XP for minor edits.I am a NAPP (National Assoc. of Photshp Professionals) member an organization Ihighly recmmd.thanksD Lufitg

  200. J. Weatherbee says:

    Come on people, Apple has NO business whatsoever abandoning the 64-bit G5 platform. I can however see the reasoning behind the G4->Intel Transition given the power requirements for the more “consumer” end of their product line. However, Apple DESERVES whatever it is they get when it comes to changing platforms so their pretty boy Jobs can save face — remember the 3GHz G5 claim? When did Apple get into the Semiconductor business anyway?The G5 is a watered down version the IBM POWER4. Take a look at its successor, the IBM POWER5 based machines and you will see what I mean. IBM has PowerPC based servers with 8-64+ processors available (talk about real computing power). IBM is the undisputed world leader in big iron for the last 50 years.Intel is NOT competition when it comes to high-performance-computing. IBM has managed to crush every company that has ever competed with them on their own turf including General Electric (another huge company). It’s funny how the Intel chips are kept in their entry level penguin powered servers.The best thing Apple could do at this point would be to support both Intel and PowerPC platforms for the long haul. Intel for their laptops/mini-mac/imac/ibooks etc. and PowerPC for the PowerMac and XServe.If Apple abandons the PowerPC Platform then I will be abandoning Apple. I originally moved my operation from Intel Based FreeBSD machines to PowerMac and XServe Based OSX (Darwin which is based on the FreeBSD toolset) systems due to the speed, memory capacity, 64-bit multiprocessing and hardware reliability, don’t forget that big-endian machines are also theoretically more efficient for networking (byte order) and database (sorting) applications. Some lower level functions in Darwin are still noticeably slower than their FreeBSD equivalents!As soon as window viruses inevitably start showing up that affect the apple partition in your dual-booting wincrap MacBook people will give a second thought to the sensibility of installing windows on an apple.Wait a minute … I’ve got to throw up.I’ve just realized that Apple actually sanctioned and therefore encouraged this wincrap, I think I need some Zantac because I have to throw up again… baaaaa

  201. I find it funny how many comments go along the lines of “I’m a software engineer, and if you can’t easily switch to Xcode then your codebase sucks”.First of all I would say that’s just wishful thinking. If you are using a toolset to its fullest then just switching is not trivial. Now, probably most well-maintained codebases could be switched without too much trouble, but you also have to consider low-level optimization. I doubt all your ‘large projects’ do 1% of the processor optimization that Photoshop does.To be angry that Adobe does not spend thousands of hours to create a free upgrade to an application just to achieve native speeds on a brand-new product is just silly. Photoshop runs fine on my Core Solo Mini. It’s almost as fast as on my 1.67ghz Powerbook. If you are so demanding on performance then you must be using a quad-core G5 right? I mean, a Powerbook or MBP would not be fast enough for you anyway.It would be a different matter if PS and IL didn’t run on Intel at all, or if they ran painfully slowly. However neither one is really the case. The sky is not falling people.Personally I’d rather see them put more work into making CS3 as good as it can be than to take a bunch of time porting old code.

  202. Great article, that was interesting

  203. lostone says:

    hmmm, blizzard moved world of warcraft to xcode when intel macs released. WoW is very very big game.

  204. Cory says:

    Boot into Windows (as frustrating as it is) and use Photoshop natively with your Intel Mac. Wouldn’t that work for now?

  205. Jefe says:

    Oh please. This may sound like a good excuse to someone who doesn’t know better, but this cross-compile isn’t that big of a deal, which is why companies with programs much more complicated than friggin’ photoshop have made the jump a priority.In fact, if you buy that CS2 is so well written and optimized, then only the engine modules should even need to be recompiled in the first place.I’ll bet there’s a good amount of QA testing involved. Thousands of hours? Sure, if you want it to be completely bug free, which hasn’t been remotely the case with a single Adobe product yet.Deja Vu. This is the same ol’ song and dance we heard from the big players in the publishing arena when Apple decided to move to OS 9. Adobe absolutely dragged their feet, as well as apps like Quark and others, simply refusing to give a shit.If Adobe didn’t have their cherished Windows versions of their products now, they wouldn’t be biting at the hand that gave them a business in the first place. But now Adobe’s just too big to move quickly on anything no matter what the cost to their users.So please. If I could recompile the latest version of Gimp to be universal in a matter of half an hour, Adobe can make a prioritized, simple step-by-step of each of these modules, QA it (or have their userbase do it as usual), slap a disclaimer on it, and allow people to give it a shot. That would be better than absolutely NOTHING.Oh, and let’s not forget that doing this oh-so-major upgrade that other less-insolent companies have achieved w/o migrating to XCode, blah blah — is a nice chance for Adobe to re-release their same graphics software (which they know publishing houses can’t do without and is a standard) and charge yet another $1000 for it.And there’s nothing we can do about it.I can’t wait for another company to come in and make Adobe begin working again for their marketshare.

  206. Hey hey now ya’ll… you have options! There’s always Fireworks… err… oh damn.No seriously, if you were an early adopter of the Mac Intels and ran to and got your preorder in just cuz Jobs said you could… then you are reaping your crop. “I bought a brand new faster Mac… I expect everything to work on it!” People today want everything NOW… instant gratification. It doesn;t work that way in the software world people. Sure they could put out a hacked up patch… but then you’d all complain about THAT.With ANY major arcitechture switch you should usually sit back and see what rises to the surface after all the hype has settled in your Apple snow globe. As an artist who lives in Photoshop nearly 8 hours a day, the KEY reason I have not jumped on the Intel bobsled is this exact reason… Adobe stuff isn’t Universal yet. The performance hit I would take on a MBP for Photoshop would be unacceptable. I’d probably do better on my PPC Mini. Plus are you really doing color correction for pre-press on a laptop? Errrm. You can whine and moan about Adobe and you can laugh at Jobs’s eye-rolling and inuendos… but really… you made your own bed by not doing your research. Oh since you have that snazzy new MBP… why don’t you Boot Camp into WinXP and run Photoshop natively there? LOLMy dual G4 chugs along just fine and I can easily wait till the new Mac pro towers are out and software and hardware are living in the Zen garden of compatibility.I would like to know why my WinXP SP2 box (work machne not my choice) always has a HUGE lag issue in Photoshop 9.0.1 though, it’s crippling sometimes… while you’re building CS3 to be the shizzle… fix CS2 across the board please.As for Scott’s post I can totally appreciate his position. I can imagine the nightmare which is Photoshop. I just spent 3 weeks on a CSS file for our company’s website to get it right, validated and cross-browser compatible and that’s just a CSS file! You people need to cut Adobe some slack and cut back on the large double-mocha half-caf lattes. As someone who was trained in college on Photoshop 2.5… i’ve seen nothing but wonderful development over the years. Try doing your work in nothing but channels and no history bub.Kudos to you Scott for honesty and forthrightness.Code on my man… code on…Stop blogging and get back to work 😉

  207. ximiee says:

    As long as it works fine it works fine that’s my motto. I always ask myself why the more tweaking why the more finetuning as it only gets 1-5seconds faster.

  208. Buying an intel imac and wondering says:

    which version of photoshop and or illustrator runs fastest on the intel macs? CS1 or CS2?

  209. Brian says:

    NIce to hear from the programmers, who do have to listen to their bosses (who listen to marketing, to stay in business)You can do anything in programming… given enough time & money.(efficiency, cost, time, reliability, pick 2, it used to only be 3 choices, but reliability is for sure a variable now)1) In his original post, he says why they didn’t move to XCode earlier (and while CS2 may have released after the Intel transition was announced, this was very late in development cycle, as in final stages of testing late)2) for those suggesting you can mishmash Intel plugin with the rest of the PPC code… wont’ work, just look at old PPC plugins for Safari, if yoru plugin doesn’t work, switch Safari to PPC mode, then try it again… bang, plugin now works, can’t run mixed mode.3) CS2 was a “slacked off upgrade” if you didn’t need CS 2 features, why buy it over CS or 7? for some out there, CS2 has some great features, the upgraded “heal” tool, vanishing point, Image Warp, 32bit HDR support, and some photographers loved the one click red-eye reduction. If these features aren’t useful, stick to the earlier version.4) for those that got “conned” into buying Intel Macs and are finding performance suffering, do something about it. Contact the salesman (which likely won’t get you anywhere, but at least you can record/document what he says) and then contact his manager, that promised performance is not happening, and maybe they can swap it for a PPC model they may be trying to get rid of.I never trust sales people anymore… I prefer to talk to a tech (if I don’t know the answer already), the guy doing the installations/repairs is more likely to really know what’s going on, and give an answer that is better for the customer (not all the time, but more likely then commisioned sales people… or cheap hire sales people)5) “they moved this program to UB, why can’t Photoshop/Creative Suite” some of these are smaller/already developed to be more portable (Like World of Warcraft mentioned above, infact I think Blizzard was already using XCode by that point for World of Warcraft) Read some of the mac game developers/porters posts on various blogs, some are easier then others. Adobe Lightroom started as portable, and even on XCode likely6) just look at apple’s Pro Apps… even with internal knowledge, it still took at least 3 months (and in most cases 6+) and at least some of them are also pay for “upgrades” like Final Cut Express. And Final Cut “Pro”/Studio does not work with older PPC plugins, a big minus for some editors.most of this information was supplied in the original post, then the last couple of points either a google search, or versiontracker/macupdate for the dates of the released products.

  210. Don Keninitz says:

    I just bought Aperture and have begun shooting in RAW 100% of the time instead of 20%. Obviously it’s not PS, but I’m starting to think I can make do with it, secure in the knowlege that Apple will almost certainly give it the functionality of PS over time (as they’ve done with Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro compared to their competitors). I can’t afford to wait until 2007 for a universal version of PS, and as others have pointed out, there’s always the possibility that Adobe will drop Mac support for PS altogether. For these reaons, I’ve begun and will continue to migrate to other products. I really don’t care much about Adobe’s rationale: the market will ultimately determine whether delaying a universal version of PS was a smart move or not. As for me, I’m now an ex-PS user.

  211. y3k says:

    Apple has reason to abandon Power PC and it’s a trivial reason: IBM wants to discontinue hardware production itself and move completely to commodity services market as a company. So Big Blue would become rather International Business Man then Machine in some time…I guess I agree with Adobe’s strategy to concentrate on CS3. Really, if we imagine how far they are in their R&D on CS3, it’s easy to guess that nobody would have motivation to go back and recompile CS2. CS2 is just fine on my iMac Core Duo with Rosetta, I’m impatient to reach CS3 in 2007! Better speed it up Adobe to get it before my birthday in February! 🙂

  212. NCA says:

    I appreciate the open reply. I understand the fiscal restraints for not producing an interim patch, but Adobe is losing face for taking so long. Most customers would be happy receiving a 25-50% performance bump (a sort of bandaid) while we wait for CS3. I work for a creative ad agency that is already replacing its PPC Macs with Intels. A year is a long time to wait.

  213. Natalie says:

    What makes some of you guys so ready to throw insults around when you know nothing about a person writing a comment? “rich ponces…” “whiners” etc etc. I am very far from rich and had to save every cent that went into the iMac Intel, nor am I a ponce, nor a whiner. I was telling my experience exactly as it happened and hoping for constructive comment. Unlike some of you, I’m not an engineer or techie but I do know that Phtshp and other Adobe software are running much slower and less efficiently on iMac Intel than it was on my old G4 PowerMac desktop. Flash MX doesn’t work at all. I was wrongly advised by Apple personnel who may not have been advised by Adobe personnel of the current difficulties. At the Apple Store in Regent St, they’ve said that they can’t test some of the Adobe software on their Intel Macs – why not? Don’t know. I am not going to try Boot Camp at this stage for reasons similar to those mentioned by J.Weatherbee above:”…people will give a second thought to the sensibility of installing windows on an apple…”Anyway, I do like my new iMac and am sticking with Apple but I should have been advised truthfully: wait until Universal is universal.

  214. Geoff says:

    Thank you for the information Scott. I hope it hasn’t given you too much hassle from all the above comments.The only thing I would like to ask is if Adobe is investing any time in finding out why Photoshop will just not start at all on some MacIntels. exc_bad_access’s and kern_invalid_addresses and all that fun looking stuff.Good luck with the swich, hope it doesn’t drive you lot round the bend

  215. PlaceboFX says:

    I was just about to buy a Mac for my family but after hearing this news I just can’t do it. Maybe next year.I would like to say however that Apple looks like they really have something with OSX.

  216. HJH says:

    Informative – but Adobe reputation suffer! Adobe is a big comany.The task is not trivial – but indeed not impossible.Adobe are the softfirm closest to apple – they get the best responsetimes.They have a suite working on intel… the PC versions!!Final Cut was released 3 weeks after the turn. A BIG program.I get better performance in photoshop using a PC emulator (parallels) than using native mac-version!!!!All in all. Things could have been done if adobe wanted to.They dont.That is the button line.And Adobe should suffer for this neglect. Please helt the Gimp team.

  217. Yukeake says:

    First of all, thanks for posting this. It’s not often we get to read a development perspective on these sorts of issues.That having been said (and I don’t hold you personally responsible for this, as a developer, it’s really out of your hands, I’d imagine), Adobe’s decisions regarding this reek of greed.Adobe’s had 5 years to get up to snuff with XCode. Apple continually warned developers they needed to move to XCode. Adobe made a decision *not* to expend the effort, because that would take time, and time is money.Now, that decision is biting them in the ass. So what do they do? Buckle down and do it? Nope. Adobe decides to force a very expensive upgrade on Mac users who want (and deserve!) native performance.I’m sure MS would pay quite a hefty sum to get headlines like “Flagship Mac App Faster on Windows”.Adobe’s slapping its Mac audience in the face, IMHO.Again, nothing personal, and thanks for posting this.

  218. Gordon Gekko says:

    I hear you, and I don’t give a damn.Photoshop is a bloated, overserving behemouth. Aperture was build from nothing, and eating some of Adboe’s lunch already.If you guys can’t get it figured out, tough shit. Too many of us don’t have a year to wait on Adobe, and lots of other companies are willing to outwork your dinosaurs.Here is to the disrupters that will pass you by.

  219. Bradb says:

    In all honesty, the debate about Adobe not bringing out universal versions of there apps is a load of BS. Adobe looks out for ADOBE’s customers and Apple looks out for APPLE’s customers. If Apple want to put a new processor in all of its macs next year they can do it. Why would they care about the customers who want to buy photoshop?What advantages/Profits would they each company gain if they teamed up with with each other to make a new universal photoshop ? Why would they care.Each company has their right to do what they want end of.If you want to buy an intel based Mac, by all means buy it. I have no regrets buying an intel iMac infact it was a brilliant investment.On the other hand, if you want to buy Adobe apps buy them as well!!! Its just an unfortunate circumstance that they haven’t brought out universal apps at the time when apple had launched their intel based macs.Stop pestering each one about the other. In time everything will be back in harmony with each other…..

  220. Tom says:

    Nice to see a direct-to-public blog style form of communication!I can tell you that I’m frustrated running CS2 under Rosetta, but I do not doubt that re-coding Photoshop etc. for Intel would be a daunting and expensive task, and am not sour about it. Just impatient! 😉 I can handle waiting, especially as the Intel to which I’m referring is a Mac Mini Core Duo, so I was never under any false pretences of blinding speed… just a little ironic that my iBook G4 runs PS faster… but ya get that!Would be nice (wishful thinking) to see a cheaper upgrade route to CS3 to ease the pain for us Intel mac users though… especially us poor university students who already have had to sell our bodies on the street corner to buy Photoshop (albeit at the still high educational prices!)

  221. I think it’s important toblog this stuff. Thats why blogs work so well.This gives alot of people the answer they were needing into why CS2 will be fine on my MacBook Pro.What about upgrades?

  222. Jeremy says:

    Thanks for the post :)It’s good to know what is the problem.

  223. James says:

    I’m a little surprised that Adobe has yet to make a universal binary code. I mainly use recording applications on my intel machine and all of the industry standard apps have an update patch that a user can download for free. These apps aren’t like garage band… i;m talking about pro tools le, nuendo, cubase or even midi sequencers like reason which are all processing demanding apps much like photoshop. adobe seems to be the only professional based software company that hasn’t caught up yet… or at least i can’t think of any others. i just hope that the progress on this is going well :/

  224. Ed Enders says:

    Everyone forgot to mention something. First of all let me state I am a mac guy, always have been.However. One thing I have not liked about apple from the beginning is this…Microsoft has always made huge efforts to make software that runs on their systems backward compatable. Apple has never made an effort. If apple had done the same, this blog would not exist. Apple doesn’t put much thought into how painful it is when they release a new system instead of making it an upgrade when they could have.

  225. Bill says:

    I’m glad to have read this blog article. It solidifies for me two things:1) I’m not buying a Mac after all.2) I’m not upgrading to CS2 or CS3 or another Adobe product any time soon.Speaking as a developer who has written software for multiple processors and OSs’s this is total BS. Adobe makes an Intel/Windows Photoshop and a PowerPC/OSX version of Photoshop. They are in a better position to make this change than any other company I know. There is no reason that they can’t recompile an Intel Mac version of the application in a few weeks. With no new features, QA only needs a regression test, so the whole big deal with testing is overblown.My guess is that this decision was made by some business person who thinks this is a way to get people to upgrade to CS2 when it comes out. But it is the opposite: Apple loses my purchase, and Adobe does too.It is amazing how people always talk about how graphic designers and artists should buy Macs just for Photoshop and Illustrator: Then suddenly Apple does some great move and now Apples are slower and more expensive than the PC counterparts for the same thing. What the heck kind of message is this? Apple should have helped Adobe become ready to launch this 6 months ago: not a year after the launch.

  226. den says:

    Let me tell you my point of view the only thing that Adobe care about is profits. (nothing wrong with that, thats how economy works)The biggest reason they did not bring a universal version of PS is the fact that they have no competion in the market. If Corel or some other company had an app to rival PS they would have had a version out by now.Look at the response they had to aperture (read Lightroom).It’s a shame that they treat their customers this way and I for one I will jump to the ocasion to switch to some other company if anything similar to PS apears. (and no coments about gimp please that doesn’t work for me:))

  227. Onder says:

    S U M M A R Y :I need a summary for that long and helping blog and I believe also others will need as well.1 – Is CS3 will be universal ?2 – April 2007 will be the date ?3 – Someone who work with CS2 on the Rosetta on intel is same with someone working on G3 ??? even G4 ?Thanks

  228. Thanks- it’s good to have more background. I am REALLY looking forward to CS3.

  229. Tarkasaurus Rex says:

    Apple instigated an inevitable unimplied battle against Adobe when Final Cut Pro came out threatening their crappy (at the time) Premiere. Now with Aperture released and more interestingly Motion getting better, I would think Adobe has thought about introducing their own line of laptops that could run all their software at speeds faster than PCs or Macs. Doubtful but the point is large companies with money mus expand to stay profitable. Think how shitty Macs would be if Apple hadn’t gained all this R&D and income from the iPod. Apple is feeding thier business of moviemaking by putting more tools into the artists hands who will inturn make more movies which Apple will sell on their itunes movie site….thanks for listening

  230. APPLE NEWGUY says:

    There’s quite a lot of you that are thanking Adobe for doing such a fine job of explaining why we’ll “just have to wait”. I’m sure that everything said above is true to a degree. Unfortunately, it really comes down to one and one thing only, MONEY! There’s more money in forcing all you poor folks to buy an upgrade than there is in making what you already have paid BIG BUCKS to OWN, work on the new Intel machines.Apple informed everyone well in advance of their plans to go with Intel processors. This is about CORPORATE GREED! Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with making money and lots of it. It’s when greed gets in the way that we ALL suffer.

  231. Smokin' Jo says:

    Hi ! I’m just thinking about thePC Users. Do they have to waitfor the mac code translation ?Adobe should offer dual Versionsfor final CS3. By using bootcampevery mac user on a new machinecan use the pc version until themac one will appear 2nd quarter.As a Mac/PC user (intelmac) i’dprefer this way over waiting forcode transfer for mac only.

  232. Dan says:

    I’ll bet if Adobe engineers really looked into the faces of the people cleaning their cubicles at night, they’d see more fulfillment and joy in them than can ever be found staring at that code hour after hour. That’s reality folks – PS3 is a human endeavor, and if you were that good, would you do it?This isn’t really an issue of whether the job is hard or easy, it’s a matter of who would do it. Software is a hand-crafted art that can take thousands of engineer hours to create. Think of how many engineers have come and gone at Adobe, that have had their hands in that code. Everytime a major architect quits, a huge amount of brain trust goes with them… or how long it would take just to go through all the code paths to test it. There’s no doubt that re-writing all of Photoshop is a major undertaking.On the other hand, I’m willing to bet that a good skunkworks group of engineers and testers could get this hopping in less time than anyone might think. But honestly, who the heck would WANT to do it? Nothing is more miserable as an engineer than rooting through a mountain of legacy code. What a horrid chore – there isn’t enough money in the world to make me want to do that – and I’m willing to wager that at the end of the day, Adobe management knows this all too well.PS3 is inevitable, because without it, Adobe will quite simply fold as a company. But all the whip cracking and foreign outsourcing in the world can’t make that job interesting or coveted.

  233. Abandoned_User says:

    Thanks for the technical explanation, yet I see this as a thinly veiled disguise for Adobe blowing off the Macintosh in general, or perhaps more accurately, blowing off anything that’s not Windows.While I’m not a betting man, if forced, I would bet that Adobe knew of PPC *and* of Intel long before official announcement; witness no real PPC, and dropping of FrameMaker for Mac (and slashing its Linux and *nix siblings). Adobe had the warning, had the time, and had the resources — what it didn’t have is a commitment to the ones who helped make Adobe what it is today: Mac users.A side note on Frame: I cannot swallow the Adobe line of not enough users. You expect me to believe that Adobe could not sell, say, 2000 new versions to the Mac-Unix-based scientific community at $800 and 5000 upgrades at $200 for a total of about $2.6 million and not cover the cost of programming? The good press would have been worth the effort.I for one will be jumping ship, one Adobe product at a time.

  234. birdforbeans says:

    for someone who has craved an apple since the fifth grade, finally buying my first mac laptop 15 years later has been a dream come true. I waited and bought the macbook, knowing it would have new information, and ulitmately better stuff to work with… and likewise, I am waiting for the new creative suite. Until then, I am holding my breath that I don’t get any new design work in the next couple of months… but to me it is it worth it to wait for the software I want… I just hope it happens while I can still get student pricing.Although I only read the first portion of this blog, I am thrilled to have some of the hard facts… it is daunting enough for me to build a website the way I want it… so to create streamlined software is like heaven and earth colliding.thank you to everyone who works hard in this industry, to my life easier as an artist!Now, if anyone can give me a clear idea of when to expect adobes new products, I will know how much faster I’ll need to budget…

  235. Guntis says:

    You probably know that Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) will be 64-bit OS, and Windows XP already has 64-bit version. I am little bit surprised that Adobe didn’t go for 64-bit apps with CS3, because by the time Adobe will release CS3, Leopard also will be released, and many pros will upgrade to MacPros with Leopard pre-installed. So 64-bit version of Photoshop CS3 would be right choice.[See my previous comments. It’s just not that simple. – Scott]

  236. sanateseri says:

    We evaluated XCode last time around when we needed to move to the Mach-O object file format. Because of the many quirks of having a large, complex, older codebase, the evaluation showed that tackling both the Mach-O conversion and an XCode conversion in one cycle wasn’t achievable, and it had to get put off.