Future Versions of Adobe Creative Suite to Drop PowerPC Support

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/12/future-versions-of-adobe-creative-suite-to-drop-powerpc-support/)

Adobe's Principal Project Manager for Photoshop John Nack today announced (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/08/goodnight_suite_risc.html) on his blog that future versions of the company's Creative Suite packages will drop support for Macs running on PowerPC processors and become Intel-only offerings.By the time the next version of the Suite ships, the very youngest PPC-based Macs will be roughly four years old. They're still great systems, but if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software, either. Bottom line: Time & resources are finite, and with big transitions underway (going 64-bit-native, switching from Carbon to Cocoa), you want Adobe building for the future, not for the past.Additional information for Adobe's customers using PowerPC machines can be found on the FAQ page (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq/) for Creative Suite. Nack also notes that news about other Adobe applications, including Flash Player and Acrobat Reader, will be released in the near future.

Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard, due for release next month, is also dropping support (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/10/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-does-require-intel-processors/) for PowerPC-based Macs.

Article Link: Future Versions of Adobe Creative Suite to Drop PowerPC Support (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/12/future-versions-of-adobe-creative-suite-to-drop-powerpc-support/)

[jessica.]

If anyone is at all shocked by this then they're silly. The second Apple drops PPC support Adobe is sure to follow suit.

[Dr.Pants]

Somehow I am not surprised.

EDIT - Jessica and I must have posted at the same time. At any rate, PPC support being dropped in the newest OS which everyone will be coding for will leave the Universal Binary (for major applications) behind; maintaining both codebases would cost too much time and money in many corporate opinions.

[Sky Blue]

"if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software"

Couldn't agree more.

[celticpride678]

Not really surprised at this.

[Eidorian]

Adobe needs to get onto the 64-bit + Cocoa train in OS X. So it's not really that surprising.

[orson3g]

Woo! Bring on Creative Suit 5! Wonder how far away that is?

[bigandy]

Woo! Bring on Creative Suit 5! Wonder how far away that is?

Hopefully soon, as CS4 won't work properly on 10.6 :rolleyes:

[jessica.]

Somehow I am not surprised.

EDIT - Jessica and I must have posted at the same time. At any rate, PPC support being dropped in the newest OS which everyone will be coding for will leave the Universal Binary (for major applications) behind; maintaining both codebases would cost too much time and money in many corporate opinions.

We were a minute apart. However, it has been said I have very fast fingers. ;)

[modular]

Considering cs4 was release 10 months ago, and the CS's have been released every 1.5-2 years, we've still probably got about another year before cs5 i'm guessing. So I guess I've got one more year with my g5 :) btw the g5 runs cs4 pretty well for a 5 year old comptuer-

[Dr.Pants]

We were a minute apart. However, it has been said I have very fast fingers. ;)

I also have satellite internet, which measures its ping time in seconds. Even though the latency bites hard, it beats dial-up hands down. If you're a faster typist then I am (very probable), then we probably started at the same time :p

[rickdollar]

"if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software"

Couldn't agree more.

That's funny. I was going to quote the very same statement... down to the exact words you quoted.:D
But yeah, that is a very realistic assumption and makes a lot of sense.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Seems like a reasonable move.

"if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software"

Couldn't agree more.
The people pitching fits about this will generally be the ones who pirate the software. Even development firms would be phasing out any PPC computers left at this point, simply because the speed increase would be more valuable to them.

[orson3g]

Hopefully soon, as CS4 won't work properly on 10.6 :rolleyes:

Hopefully Adobe will fix it. What doesn't work with it? I have Design Premium and was planning to upgrade to Snow Leopard.

[mathcolo]

Now all we need is Microsoft to drop PowerPC too :D

[Eidorian]

Now all we need is Microsoft to drop PowerPC too :DThey did back in NT 4.0.

Being specific helps. :D

[mathcolo]

They did back in NT 4.0.

Being specific helps. :D

Hahahahaha... nice one :p. If it must be so, Microsoft should drop PowerPC support for Office in the next version.

[Eidorian]

Hahahahaha... nice one :p. If it must be so, Microsoft should drop PowerPC support for Office in the next version.Intel-only Office? Unlikely but it'd be nice if the Installer wasn't run under Rosetta. Bring back the old drag and drop install option.

[mathcolo]

Intel-only Office? Unlikely but it'd be nice if the Installer wasn't run under Rosetta. Bring back the old drag and drop install option.

Who cares about the Installer? Those can be easily rewritten :rolleyes:

[Willis]

It's amazing how fast 3 years has gone by since the Intel transition. It was obvious it was going to happen, in the same way SL being Intel only too.

[Fabrice]

...They have to keep Flash Player for PPC...
I wonder how they will deal with this... Messy times are coming...

[Doctor Q]

Don't confuse dropping support for PPC in new versions of Creative Suite (what they are doing) with dropping support for PPC in old versions (which they are not doing, at least for now).

From their FAQ (italics mine):

What are Adobe's plans to support the PowerPC platform for the Creative Suite family of products?

Adobe intends for future versions of the Creative Suite range of products to run on Intel based Macs with no support for their installation on PowerPC systems.

Will Adobe continue to support the version of Creative Suite that I am currently running on PowerPC?

Adobe does not plan to make any changes to the existing complimentary and paid support programs that are enjoyed by our customers.
So nobody needs to upgrade Creative Suite or update their hardware to do what they do now. You'll just need new-enough hardware if and when you do further upgrades to Creative Suite.

[Pomares]

Don't care any more. Have found an alternative for each product that I am very happy with, except for Illustrator, which I am very fond of.

Have you found a good alternative to Illustrator?

[doctoree]

and while you are at it please add Open CL and REAL SSE 4 support oh and make AE CS5 a node based compositor. I don't want to keep switching between ae and nuke all the time. Thanks!

[Hugh]

Oh my. I don't think I can read another series of HyperZBoy rants.

I was thinking this will start about PPC vs Intel thread as well. :/

Hugh

[decksnap]

I would care if new versions of Adobe software actually got faster... As it is I wonder if I shouldn't downgrade.

[MacFly123]

Woo! Bring on Creative Suit 5! Wonder how far away that is?

Hopefully soon, as CS4 won't work properly on 10.6 :rolleyes:

Considering cs4 was release 10 months ago, and the CS's have been released every 1.5-2 years, we've still probably got about another year before cs5 i'm guessing. So I guess I've got one more year with my g5 :) btw the g5 runs cs4 pretty well for a 5 year old comptuer-

Hopefully Adobe will fix it. What doesn't work with it? I have Design Premium and was planning to upgrade to Snow Leopard.

Can someone expound please? :eek: I am a video producer and was planning on getting Snow Leopard and the new final cut studio. I use Photoshop CS3 for my video work and graphics. So will that not work on Snow Leopard? Will I need to upgrade to CS4? I can't go without Photoshop with my video work! I don't see why it wouldn't work. It might need an update to kill some bugs, but why would it completely not work? :(

[MondayNgt]

Can someone expound please? :eek: I am a video producer and was planning on getting Snow Leopard and the new final cut studio. I use Photoshop CS3 for my video work and graphics. So will that not work on Snow Leopard? Will I need to upgrade to CS4? I can't go without Photoshop with my video work! I don't see why it wouldn't work. It might need an update to kill some bugs, but why would it completely not work? :(

I assume you're using an Intel Mac if you're planning to upgrade to Snow Leopard. As Adobe CS3 are native Intel apps / Universal Binary, I don't see why it wouldn't work all of the sudden. Only people out of luck is the old PowerPC users, and they can't upgrade to Snow Leopard anyway.

[ventro]

Photoshop on Mac is a gigantic cluster**** that needs a complete rewrite using Core Image and Cocoa. It is one of the worst programs on Mac and it's a shame, because I use it easily the most often.

[Shunnabunich]

Photoshop on Mac is a gigantic cluster**** that needs a complete rewrite using Core Image and Cocoa. It is one of the worst programs on Mac and it's a shame, because I use it easily the most often.

"Worst" is probably a stretch, especially with Microsoft still bothering to throw in their token Office re-warm, and the many janky Linux apps that purport to be ported to OS X. However, like iTunes (and formerly the Finder — glad Apple finally got off their asses and addressed that), I agree that Photoshop is gasping and crawling towards the (faraway?) oasis of a total overhaul.

On the other hand, Core Image and Cocoa might not be the best choice for them. They still have a lot of Windows customers, and writing a completely and exclusively Mac-native version of Photoshop would create a lot more work for them when they barely seem able to handle what they've got now. Do they do a similar, ground-up native rewrite in...I dunno, .NET and WPF, or whatever it is that Windows people have? Or do they keep the old, bloated cross-platform legacy branch alive even longer on that side? Obviously, some of us would love to bask in the sheer, unadulterated schadenfreude of seeing Adobe drop Windows support in PS altogether, but realistically that will never happen.

Whatever they do, Photoshop will necessarily have its roots in a cross-platform code base, whether that code is made of something new, or decades of legacy blubber.

[MacFly123]

I assume you're using an Intel Mac if you're planning to upgrade to Snow Leopard. As Adobe CS3 are native Intel apps / Universal Binary, I don't see why it wouldn't work all of the sudden. Only people out of luck is the old PowerPC users, and they can't upgrade to Snow Leopard anyway.

Ya. I have never owned a PowerPC Mac. My first Mac was the iMac when they switched to Intel. I asked because someone in here that I quoted was saying that Creative Suites won't work on Snow Leopard! I don't see why not either. :confused: I remember switching from Tiger to Leopard with my CS3 and there were some bugs... STILL ARE AHEM ADOBE, :rolleyes: but it works still.

[BornAgainMac]

I am so glad I am a consumer that doesn't have to use that slow Creative Suite product. I can use something from a smaller vendor for a 10th of the price that written from the ground up as a Mac app. Too bad the Pros must suffer because they have to use it. Hopefully the new version is better and not too buggy.

It is surprising there wasn't a group complaining about PPC. I was expecting that flame war. Maybe that debate is nearing an end.

[batchtaster]

Intel-only Office? Unlikely but it'd be nice if the Installer wasn't run under Rosetta. Bring back the old drag and drop install option.

Huh? Office 2008 uses Apple's Installer, so it's as Intel-ey as Apple make it.

The whole thing is pkgs wrapped in a mpkg. I know, because I have to explore its innards to deploy to our workstation fleet. All the recent Microsoft releases, including Office updates, RDC and the Open XML file converter have all been pkgs. The only exceptions have been drag-n-droppers, like Messenger.

I haven't looked that closely at AutoUpdate (we disable it, because our software inventory is under Change Management), but all it does is pull down updates from Microsoft, still in mpkg/pkg format, and kick off the same Apple Installer framework.

[Eidorian]

Huh? Office 2008 uses Apple's Installer, so it's as Intel-ey as Apple make it.

The whole thing is pkgs wrapped in a mpkg. I know, because I have to explore its innards to deploy to our workstation fleet. All the recent Microsoft releases, including Office updates, RDC and the Open XML file converter have all been pkgs. The only exceptions have been drag-n-droppers, like Messenger.I'm getting far too lazy around here sometimes. I knew that someone, someone would bring up the packages and the usage of Installer.app and/or other package tools for deployment.

The last time I ran the Office 2008 installer it was running under PowerPC and throttling up my processor. There is a pkg somewhere but the installer on the CD probably isn't Apple's.

[batchtaster]

The last time I ran the Office 2008 installer it was running under PowerPC and throttling up my processor. There is a pkg somewhere but the installer on the CD probably isn't Apple's.

I'm looking at the Office 2008 12.0.0 installer disc right now.

http://i32.tinypic.com/1zwm74m.jpg

I honestly don't know what to tell you apart from that you may have some other edition. If you're involved in software deployment, you should check with your Microsoft rep about an all-pkg copy.

In any case, even if there is a wrapper app that is PowerPC, since, as you said, there's a pkg somewhere, the Apple Installer engine is still doing the actual work. Their PowerPC "installer" won't be directly installing anything, and just providing a pretty GUI; there's no point building a pkg and then writing your own install engine when Apple's is just sitting there waiting to be used.

[Eidorian]

I'm looking at the Office 2008 12.0.0 installer disc right now.

I honestly don't know what to tell you apart from that you may have some other edition. If you're involved in software deployment, you should check with your Microsoft rep about an all-pkg copy.

In any case, even if there is a wrapper app that is PowerPC, since, as you said, there's a pkg somewhere, the Apple Installer engine is still doing the actual work. Their PowerPC "installer" won't be directly installing anything, and just providing a pretty GUI; there's no point building a pkg and then writing your own install engine when Apple's is just sitting there waiting to be used.Oh I know. It's nice when someone keeps you on your toes. You're entirely correct about the package and Installer but for some reason mentions (even within the past week) and my own memories of the PowerPC Office 2008 installer come to mind. It's that nagging in the back of my mind. What about the updates themselves after you finish downloading them using Microsoft AutoUpdate? Those should be more packages as well though.

[ChrisA]

This is good news. If PPC suport where to remain then Photoshop's funtionality would be limited to only what a PPC could do.

Also Snow Leopard is Intel only. Likely the new CS will run only on Snow Leopard and take advantage of it's new features.

If CS did suport PPC then We'd know for sure the Adobe was not using any on Snow Leopard's new features. So like I said, this is good news.

If you have a G4 (and I still have one, along with my newer Mac) then my old CS3 will continue to work forever

[batchtaster]

Oh I know. It's nice when someone keeps you on your toes. You're entirely correct about the package and Installer but for some reason mentions and my own memories of the PowerPC Office 2008 installer come to mind. It's that nagging in the back of my mind. What about the updates themselves after you finish downloading them using Microsoft AutoUpdate?

All the Office updates we deploy are the manual download versions, and AutoUpdate is disabled on all our workstation fleet (defaults write com.microsoft.autoupdate2 HowToCheck "Manual").

I have used AutoUpdate on occasion, and it still seems to use the pkg/mpkg installers - basically it just seems to retrieve and execute the same updaters as the manual download. The AutoUpdate app itself may still be PowerPC (mine seems to be Universal), but again, Apple's Installer framework does the grunt work.

Microsoft seem to have committed themselves pretty heavily to using the Installer framework, because they do manipulation of the receipts as part of the update process (/Library/Receipts). They would certainly need to make sure AutoUpdate does the same thing as the manual install. If you look at your Office receipts, the updaters often remove older receipts, seemingly as a form of establishing baselines. eg: all my original Office 12.0.0 receipts are gone.

[Amdahl]

Somehow I am not surprised.

EDIT - Jessica and I must have posted at the same time. At any rate, PPC support being dropped in the newest OS which everyone will be coding for will leave the Universal Binary (for major applications) behind; maintaining both codebases would cost too much time and money in many corporate opinions.

Both codebases? Since I don't suspect they are dropping support for 10.5, then there is only one codebase. As Steve Jobs said, all it takes to make a Universal Binary is to 'check a box.' How do you suppose Intel-native apps came out so fast after the switch to Intel processors?

[Eidorian]

All the Office updates we deploy are the manual download versions, and AutoUpdate is disabled on all our workstation fleet (defaults write com.microsoft.autoupdate2 HowToCheck "Manual").

I have used AutoUpdate on occasion, and it still seems to use the pkg/mpkg installers - basically it just seems to retrieve and execute the same updaters as the manual download. The AutoUpdate app itself may still be PowerPC (mine seems to be Universal), but again, Apple's Installer framework does the grunt work.

Microsoft seem to have committed themselves pretty heavily to using the Installer framework, because they do manipulation of the receipts as part of the update process (/Library/Receipts). They would certainly need to make sure AutoUpdate does the same thing as the manual install. If you look at your Office receipts, the updaters often remove older receipts, seemingly as a form of establishing baselines. eg: all my original Office 12.0.0 receipts are gone.Thanks batchtaster. I suspected as much. It's nice to know someone else around here that has been on the admin and deployment side of things on OS X. I've been out of the loop for some time so it's a nice refresher.

[Amdahl]

...They have to keep Flash Player for PPC...
I wonder how they will deal with this... Messy times are coming...

Oh gee, I guess they'll just have to keep making Flash for PPC, Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3. Which are all PowerPC!

I have used AutoUpdate on occasion, and it still seems to use the pkg/mpkg installers - basically it just seems to retrieve and execute the same updaters as the manual download. The AutoUpdate app itself may still be PowerPC (mine seems to be Universal), but again, Apple's Installer framework does the grunt work.
If the app is PowerPC, all Frameworks/libraries/plugins that it accesses are also PowerPC.

[jonnos]

dammit.. cs5 soon please.. i want my edu discount for master collection before i graduate!

[spillproof]

Hooray for the future? Yes, we can't be stepping backwards.

[batchtaster]

If the app is PowerPC, all Frameworks/libraries/plugins that it accesses are also PowerPC.

That depends on how it's kicked off, and it depends on how Apple's framework operates, since that only applies to threads within a single process (eg: Microsoft's Installer plug-in to search for older versions). If you watch any kind of pkg installation, there are multiple processes spawned. It makes very little sense to thread the whole thing in one process - even Installer doesn't do that.

Simple example: I can write a PowerPC AppleScript that calls "installer -target / -pkg /path/to/my.pkg"). On an Intel, the AppleScript will operate in Rosetta, but the "installer" process will run natively.

[JFreak]

If anyone is at all shocked by this then they're silly. The second Apple drops PPC support Adobe is sure to follow suit.

Yep. Adobe could have expressed this like "As you all probably guessed, the Mac version of CS5 only supports Snow Leopard" thus everyone knowing their hardware is not capable of running SL would also know they cannot upgrade to CS5 until they've bought new hardware.

This "dropping PPC" is overly-hyped topic, because that's not even the case. They're only supporting latest OS as before, nothing has changed.

dammit.. cs5 soon please.. i want my edu discount for master collection before i graduate!

Not this year for sure

[Hamish]

I know there are only a few of us left. But some G5 owners (in my case I have the last one (Quad) before the switch) might be interested in sharing
info on what is/isn't possible on G5's going forward, officially supported or not.

http://Gackinto5h.com

not much there other than a test of Motion 4 running on a G5 for now,
but the conversation has begun and anyone who wants to find out more
about how to make their hardware last a little longer despite the shiny
new upgraded OS they miss out on is welcome to leave a question or comment.

Cheers

[Lesser Evets]

I would care if new versions of Adobe software actually got faster... As it is I wonder if I shouldn't downgrade.

This is what I've been thinking for years.

[Royale w/cheese]

It is surprising there wasn't a group complaining about PPC. I was expecting that flame war. Maybe that debate is nearing an end.
Dadgummit, My eMac and my dual 450 won't work anymore with the next CS?!? They are all I can afford after buying the last CS!:D

Now all we need is Microsoft to drop PowerPC too :D Then where would all the xbox owners be?

Oh gee, I guess they'll just have to keep making Flash for PPC, Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3. Which are all PowerPC! There it is.

[HyperZboy]

It's amazing how fast 3 years has gone by since the Intel transition. It was obvious it was going to happen, in the same way SL being Intel only too.

I disagree partially, I don't believe it was obvious at all. Although I understand Adobe's decision and feel its probably the right thing to do for this type of software. I feel differently about other software though, especially simple software like many of Google's Mac Intel-only offerings or Microsoft Office.

What wasn't obvious was what Apple was planning on doing because Steve Jobs made many promises that he didn't keep and in effect defrauded a large portion of Apple's customer base in my opinion. It's just plain wrong to break an historical 25+ year tradition of supporting $2000-$4000 machines just 2-3 years old. Apple sold PowerPC Macs less than 3 years ago.

All of the software companies like Adobe cannot be blamed by disgruntled PowerPC users who've got lots of money invested in PowerPC equipment. Adobe is only following Apple's lead. So that part is expected.

Its Apple's fault for abandoning its longest and most loyal customers. :(

[djellison]

Apple sold PowerPC Macs less than 3 years ago.


Is there some feature in Snow Leopard I've not heard about? Does it sneak out at night and format the hard drives of any PPC users still on Leopard?

[JensenJJ]

I disagree partially, I don't believe it was obvious at all. Although I understand Adobe's decision and feel its probably the right thing to do for this type of software. I feel differently about other software though, especially simple software like many of Google's Mac Intel-only offerings or Microsoft Office.

What wasn't obvious was what Apple was planning on doing because Steve Jobs made many promises that he didn't keep and in effect defrauded a large portion of Apple's customer base in my opinion. It's just plain wrong to break an historical 25+ year tradition of supporting $2000-$4000 machines just 2-3 years old. Apple sold PowerPC Macs less than 3 years ago.

All of the software companies like Adobe cannot be blamed by disgruntled PowerPC users who've got lots of money invested in PowerPC equipment. Adobe is only following Apple's lead. So that part is expected.

Its Apple's fault for abandoning its longest and most loyal customers. :(

If you are going to buy software for 1.000-2500$ (in the US) or 2300-4800$ (In Denmark Europe(Have no idea why it cost to much more in Denmark))

Then you are not sitting on an 3+ year old computer. An if you are. Then it's about time to upgrade

[HyperZboy]

If you are going to buy software for 1.000-2500$ (in the US) or 2300-4800$ (In Denmark Europe(Have no idea why it cost to much more in Denmark))

Then you are not sitting on an 3+ year old computer. An if you are. Then it's about time to upgrade

The cheapest INTEL Macs sold in the last few years are slower than my PowerMac G5s!

Why should I be FORCED to upgrade when it shouldn't be necessary?

This notion that new computers are always faster/better needs to go away.

Computer speed improvements have slowed to a crawl now.

All of my G5s are 64bit, some could technically run Grand Central even while some INTEL Macs with INTEL graphics could never in a million years run OpenCL!

Once again, I'm NOT criticizing Adobe. I'm slamming Apple for the way they're treating their loyal customers.

[HyperZboy]

Photoshop on Mac is a gigantic cluster**** that needs a complete rewrite using Core Image and Cocoa. It is one of the worst programs on Mac and it's a shame, because I use it easily the most often.

And both Core Image and Cocoa both were initially PowerPC technologies, go figure.

[Eidorian]

A minor note here, the best GPU you can get for a PowerPC machine is the Radeon X1900 XT. That still predates the unified/programmable shader required for OpenCL and other GPGPU sytems.

[Amdahl]

Simple example: I can write a PowerPC AppleScript that calls "installer -target / -pkg /path/to/my.pkg"). On an Intel, the AppleScript will operate in Rosetta, but the "installer" process will run natively.

Perhaps I'm asking a stupid question, but are you sure that would apply to processes that are spawned by a PowerPC process? Since child processes might have IPC or shared memory areas, it would seem to me that PowerPC versions would be spawned, not Intel.

[Brien]

Unfortunately, tech marches on. PPC is dead. It's been dead since that fateful day in '06 when Steve announced the first intel macs.

By next summer, you'll be lucky if there's any PPC software at all. With 10.6 and a majority of the pro apps going intel-only, everyone else is sure to join the bandwagon. Especially with Apple underpricing SL to get everyone using it.

[Eidorian]

Unfortunately, tech marches on. PPC is dead. It's been dead since that fateful day in '06 when Steve announced the first intel macs.

By next summer, you'll be lucky if there's any PPC software at all. With 10.6 and a majority of the pro apps going intel-only, everyone else is sure to join the bandwagon. Especially with Apple underpricing SL to get everyone using it.PowerPC was dead at WWDC 2005. The transition wasn't finished until WWDC 2006.

I've said it before but I'd like the find the last PowerPC based Mac under AppleCare until 2010.

[SeattleMoose]

I am having a hard time finding parts to keep my Model T running!!!

Progress....I say pssshhhawww!!

[JonB3Z]

I don't really have a problem with this decision but:

"if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software, either"

doesn't necessarily follow. Since Adobe has a practice of making Camera Raw not backwardly compatible with previous CS versions and then abandoning updates to Camera Raw on the older version, buyers of new digital camera models frequently must update CS to get support for their camera's raw files. Since my PowerMac (which is running Tiger, BTW) still handles photo processing just fine, I would have no need to upgrade otherwise, but if I bought a new camera I'd have a problem.

Of course, Adobe is hardly the only software house that will be doing this, so PPC users are going to find it harder and harder to avoid upgrading the hardware.

Me, I like to use hardware until it breaks. The PowerMac shows no sign of doing that. Maybe I'll have to drop it off the roof. :eek:

[Dr.Pants]

Both codebases? Since I don't suspect they are dropping support for 10.5, then there is only one codebase. As Steve Jobs said, all it takes to make a Universal Binary is to 'check a box.' How do you suppose Intel-native apps came out so fast after the switch to Intel processors?

Sometimes programmers are so anal-retentive that they don't rely on the compiler for all of their code. I naturally assumed Adobe would be in this group, but then I remember Flash Player for Macintosh... And I take anything Steve Jobs says with a grain of salt, anyways. Maybe I'm too anal-retentive - after all, FCS3 was packaged as Universal.

[crackbookpro]

Adobe needs to get onto the 64-bit + Cocoa train in OS X. So it's not really that surprising.

CS5!!! ...will be the best creative suite yet from Adobe :cool:

...can't wait for the Master's new features!

[HyperZboy]

I am having a hard time finding parts to keep my Model T running!!!

Progress....I say pssshhhawww!!

My PowerPC G5s can kick half of your INTEL azzes! LOL

But seriously, this is not progress, it's planned obsolescence for the purposes of blatant profit, nothing more.

And the discontinued operating support breaks with 25 years of Apple precedent.

And to those people that say that OpenCL won't run on PowerPC...

Well guess what? I won't run on MOST INTEL Macs EITHER!

HAHA! The joke is on you guys too!

So maybe you should junk all those 1 year old INTEL Macs too huh? :D

[Tallest Skil]

My PowerPC G5s can kick half of your INTEL azzes! LOL

But seriously, this is not progress, it's planned obsolescence for the purposes of blatant profit, nothing more.

And the discontinued operating support breaks with 25 years of Apple precedent.

And to those people that say that OpenCL won't run on PowerPC...

Well guess what? I won't run on MOST INTEL Macs EITHER!

HAHA! The joke is on you guys too!

So maybe you should junk all those 1 year old INTEL Macs too huh? :D

Anyone who advocates 3 year old tech as usable for high-end work is out of touch with reality.

[vohdoun]

It's amusing at one point in the past it use to be Apple users and Windows/PC users bashing each other.

Now it's Apple users attacking Apple users. Ironic.

[Burnsey]

Meh, I cant imagine how poorly future Adobe products will run on PPCs, they are quite bloated and slow on the intels as it is.

[SnowLeopard2008]

Bye bye PPC. You won't be missed.

[DakotaGuy]

Bye bye PPC. You won't be missed.

I agree. I never figured out why Apple messed with PPC in the first place. Intel x86 was always faster and far more advanced. I know they were just trying to be different, but different isn't always better. I had a couple of PPC Macs and I guess they were fine, but we were always running slower then the PC's back in the day.

[Tallest Skil]

I agree. I never figured out why Apple messed with PPC in the first place. Intel x86 was always faster and far more advanced. I know they were just trying to be different, but different isn't always better. I had a couple of PPC Macs and I guess they were fine, but we were always running slower then the PC's back in the day.

I seem to remember the G3 running faster than the Pentiums of that time.

I think that's about it, though. By the time of the G5, the speed discrepancy was noticeable.

[eobanb]

Awesome.

Dropping PPC support probably means that Adobe will finally be able to do a total Cocoa rewrite of the remaining Carbon parts of CS, thereby enabling them to offer 64-bit versions across the line. Lightroom was pure Intel and Cocoa from the very beginning, and that's why there's a 64-bit version. Apple's dropped support for 64-bit Carbon, which is why there was a 64-bit version of CS4 on Windows but not Mac OS X.

[Amdahl]

It's amusing at one point in the past it use to be Apple users and Windows/PC users bashing each other.

Now it's Apple users attacking Apple users. Ironic.

A schism in the cult.

I agree. I never figured out why Apple messed with PPC in the first place. Intel x86 was always faster and far more advanced. I know they were just trying to be different, but different isn't always better. I had a couple of PPC Macs and I guess they were fine, but we were always running slower then the PC's back in the day.

PowerPC was the logical choice for Apple. The Motorola 68000 series was being dropped, and Motorola and IBM were working on the new PowerPC chip as the replacement. PowerPC was big-endian just like 68000, which was more important 'back in the day,' when making those kinds of binary level changes would upset an entire software eco-systems Apple cart. So, Apple went along for the ride. There was real hope that PowerPC was going to throw Intel overboard at the time of introduction. Microsoft at the time was producing Windows NT for MIPS, i386, PowerPC, and Alpha. According to Wiki, versions for SPARC and 'Clipper' were also being developed by a 3rd party, but never sold at retail. OS/2 was also issued in beta-form for PowerPC, including a 'Rosetta' type of software that let x86 apps run.

As it turns out, x86 & Microsoft are two sides of the same coin. Once Microsoft figured this out, all the other versions of NT were cancelled. Alpha lasted one cycle longer than the others.

So, when you add a little history, it doesn't seem so silly that Apple would head to PowerPC instead of Intel. PowerPC was faster than Intel from introduction to about 1996-1997 when the Pentium Pro made a big leap for Intel that carried all the way to the Pentium III. That is what brought Intel back to even, and in the 2003-2004 years, they pulled ahead of IBM PPC 970 on clock speed, until everybody hit the wall. But what Intel did have going for it was low-power laptop chips.

And really, how do you figure that x86, a 30-year-old format with 8 registers, is more advanced than PowerPC, a 15-year old format with 32 registers? The whole advantage to '64-bit' on Intel is actually not to do with 64-bit, but with having 16 registers instead of 8.

Dropping PPC support probably means that Adobe will finally be able to do a total Cocoa rewrite of the remaining Carbon parts of CS, thereby enabling them to offer 64-bit versions across the line. Lightroom was pure Intel and Cocoa from the very beginning, and that's why there's a 64-bit version. Apple's dropped support for 64-bit Carbon, which is why there was a 64-bit version of CS4 on Windows but not Mac OS X.

There is no connection between PPC and Cocoa, or PPC and Carbon. 64-bit Cocoa exists on PowerPC in 10.5 right now. There is only a 64-bit version of Lightroom because it was newer code, written for Cocoa, not because it was for Intel.

[charlituna]

If anyone is at all shocked by this then they're silly. The second Apple drops PPC support Adobe is sure to follow suit.

agreed.

anyone that hasn't been keeping up with the current systems, or would be highly put out to have to upgrade to a new machine is likely not part of the core audience for CS anyway. so they will be fine with the older products.

[RMo]

Both codebases? Since I don't suspect they are dropping support for 10.5, then there is only one codebase. As Steve Jobs said, all it takes to make a Universal Binary is to 'check a box.' How do you suppose Intel-native apps came out so fast after the switch to Intel processors?

The "check a box" statement is mostly true for Cocoa programs, but there may still be problems caused by endianness (Google it), particularly with larger or more complex programs--and I'm sure Adobe's products are all among this group. Basically, you can check the box, but you still need to test on both. This works for Carbon apps too (and again, I'm sure this is most of Adobe's apps), but they'll usually need a bit more work. And if they're really old and written with CodeWarrior or PowerPlant, they'll almost surely require some work--like, for example--moving to Xcode (and Carbon or Cocoa, though PowerPlant was Carbon-based). :D Again, since Adobe has been developing for Mac since well before we even knew pre-X would someday become "Classic," I'm sure they have at least some projects in these then-popular IDEs/frameworks, and getting it to work is undoubtedly not as simple as checking the box to compile it for both architectures.

[Amdahl]

What wasn't obvious was what Apple was planning on doing because Steve Jobs made many promises that he didn't keep and in effect defrauded a large portion of Apple's customer base in my opinion. It's just plain wrong to break an historical 25+ year tradition of supporting $2000-$4000 machines just 2-3 years old. Apple sold PowerPC Macs less than 3 years ago.

Its Apple's fault for abandoning its longest and most loyal customers. :(

Yes, I agree - COMPLETELY. My G5 AppleCare expires in two months. But you have to look at it this way: Apple lost the war, and when you lose a war, there are casualties.

[Amdahl]

The "check a box" statement is mostly true for Cocoa programs, but there may still be problems caused by endianness (Google it), particularly with larger or more complex programs--and I'm sure Adobe's products are all among this group. Basically, you can check the box, but you still need to test on both. This works for Carbon apps too (and again, I'm sure this is most of Adobe's apps), but they'll usually need a bit more work. And if they're really old and written with CodeWarrior or PowerPlant, they'll almost surely require some work--like, for example--moving to Xcode (and Carbon or Cocoa, though PowerPlant was Carbon-based). :D Again, since Adobe has been developing for Mac since well before we even knew pre-X would someday become "Classic," I'm sure they have at least some projects in these then-popular IDEs/frameworks, and getting it to work is undoubtedly not as simple as checking the box to compile it for both architectures.

Since this is a theoretical discussion (we don't have Adobe's source), I am going to disagree with you. They did it (addressed endian issues) on both PPC (Mac) and x86 (Windows) with their CARBON/Win32 codebase. Since they are rewriting to Cocoa/Win64, it isn't going to be harder, it will be EASIER than what they've already done. They are just dropping it for the marketing reasons they plainly stated, not due to any difficulty.

Same as Apple. It isn't hard, they've just already got your money. :D

For an example of why I say it 'isn't hard,' I am going to point to the thousands of free, open source applications that will run on a dozen operating systems, on a dozen architectures. Or Linux or FreeBSD or NetBSD, which will run on every architecture out there. Endianness is really only a problem when you never thought about it when you first started your coding. Same for being '32-bit clean.'

[djellison]

Why should I be FORCED to upgrade when it shouldn't be necessary?


Who's forcing you? Who?

Your machine works. It works today - it will be just as fast and just as capable as it is today, the day Snow Leopard is released and the day CS5 hits the shelves.

What about your machine is going to stop functioning the day CS5 or Snow Leopard are released?

[Amdahl]

Who's forcing you? Who?

Your machine works. It works today - it will be just as fast and just as capable as it is today, the day Snow Leopard is released and the day CS5 hits the shelves.

What about your machine is going to stop functioning the day CS5 or Snow Leopard are released?

1) People buy computers for their forward capabilities. If they didn't, we'd have a bunch of small niche platforms around, like Amiga, Commodore, Atari, etc. People buy the iPhone because it has Apps today and Apps tomorrow. People don't buy as many Pre's because it has few Apps today, and no promise of more tomorrow. No one would find much value in an iPhone that only runs Apps made as of January 1, 2009, and would never run an app that comes out tomorrow. People buy the future.

2) Security Updates will stop working for those with Tiger the day Snow Leopard ships. This statement is to establish that Apple's FORWARD decisions do IN FACT impact the usefulness of a computer bought a few years ago. So stop attacking people as if they are fools.

Anyone who owns a computer is going to be upset when the company stops supporting the product before the end of a reason useful lifetime. In fact, it isn't much different than being unhappy that HD-DVD movies are no longer being made, so your players' value is diminished. The only difference is, Apple told PPC buyers to continue buying, because there was a happy 'Universal' future for everybody. Then they killed the baby.

[Truffy]

...if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software, either.Actually, I don't agree with this, but then it's not the first time that I've disagreed with that idiot Nack. I've kept my software (at least that that I regularly use) up to date, even though I'm running a PowerMac. But the writing's been on the wall since Apple announced the transition to Intel, and I'm happy now to upgrade the hardware anyway. And any software, except CS. Looking for a decent Illy replacement and a PS replacement that isn't as bloated as Adobe's offering, and I'll be quite happy to give Adobe the flip.

[Mr. Wonderful]

I just can't wait to see how buggy the complete rewrite will be. Let's not kid ourselves, unfortunately.

[bigdaddyp]

Seems like a reasonable move.


The people pitching fits about this will generally be the ones who pirate the software. Even development firms would be phasing out any PPC computers left at this point, simply because the speed increase would be more valuable to them.

Shoot I am so poor and CS4 is so expensive I can't even afford to pirate it. :D

[charlituna]

Looking for a decent Illy replacement and a PS replacement that isn't as bloated as Adobe's offering, and I'll be quite happy to give Adobe the flip.

who knows, a no PPC version might lose some of the bloat.

[Ramashalanka]

Have you found a good alternative to Illustrator?

(I couldn't see where anyone had answered this from a few pages back, sorry if it's duplicate).

I like inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/). Which is free and very good. Can be rough around the edges (X11), but is not too buggy and is quite intuitive with plenty of features. The main thing I'd like that Illustrator has is being able to open and export a larger variety of file formats; still enough to get by though. Definitely worth a try.

[mikes63737]

I wish the world could have dropped IE6 as quickly as we're dropping PPC.

[Amdahl]

I wish the world could have dropped IE6 as quickly as we're dropping PPC.

Well you see, that right there is the difference. 'We' aren't dropping PPC. Apple is dropping PowerPC. The 'world' would rather keep things working until 'world' is ready to drop it. Kudos to Microsoft for making promises, and keeping them.

[charlituna]

Well you see, that right there is the difference. 'We' aren't dropping PPC. Apple is dropping PowerPC. The 'world' would rather keep things working until 'world' is ready to drop it. Kudos to Microsoft for making promises, and keeping them.

well here's the catch. Apple said when they released the first Intels that PPC support was going to be phased out. and sooner rather than later. which is a good move cause then companies could update. that some companies (like Intuit) haven't isn't Apple's fault.

but to that end, they haven't completely dropped PPC. this go around you can install Rosetta if you need it. when we get to 10.7 I suspect that it won't even be optional but that's probably a good two years away.

and lets not forget that Leopard is still a functioning OS (heck I know some folks that are still on Panther). those peeps still with a PPC will still be able to use it just fine until that machine goes belly up. at which point it will be way more cost effective to buy a new machine than to fix their old one

[Macminiintel]

Hopefully soon, as CS4 won't work properly on 10.6 :rolleyes:

hmm I have the latest Snow Leopard GM build on my MacBook photoshop CS4 works perfectly fine no issues

[Amdahl]

well here's the catch. Apple said when they released the first Intels that PPC support was going to be phased out. and sooner rather than later.
No they didn't.

I'm looking forward to all the screaming in a month when Intel owners find out that they won't be booting a 64-bit OS on their 64-bit machine, because Apple decided to 'drop' them. Or they won't be getting any OpenCL GPU acceleration because Apple has decided not to support their card.

Go Hackintosh, or you're a sucka!