Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adobe Responds to Intel-Only Soundbooth

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,203
38,989


An Adobe blog by John Nack addresses some recent concerns due to a recent release of the beta of their new SoundBooth application which is available for Intel Macs only.

Nack reassures customers that Adobe's existing applications will be released as Universal (both Intel and PowerPC) for now:

As regards Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc., these apps have been tuned for PowerPC for many versions, and therefore continuing that support is a very different matter than creating support from scratch. To put the freaking out to rest: the next versions of the CS and Studio apps are being built as Universal apps, and they'll run great on PPC. Someday Apple, Adobe, and everyone else will stop supporting PPC, as they did with 68k chips, OS 9, etc.--but not anytime soon.
Click to expand...

According to Nack, focusing on Intel-only for SoundBooth allowed Adobe to bring the application to market faster and with a richer feature set. That being said, it appears clear that there are no plans for providing PowerPC support in new applications such as Soundbooth:

And again, in order to migrate, you have to start somewhere (namely, on the PPC). Soundbooth is a fresh start, not a migration.
Click to expand...
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/30/adobe-responds-to-intel-only-soundbooth/
So explain Lightroom being Universal?

Thank God it is Universal, even in it's beta version it's a fantastic app, and incredibly stable (far more stable than many final version apps, including Excel).
 
So Adobe is helping Apple push the transition to Intel chips. This is a positive thing, no?
 
macenforcer said:
And so the PPC macs being obsolete begins.
Click to expand...

True indeed!

It makes sense for new applications of this magnitude to be Intel only, I suppose. But what tools are they using to build this? If they can make Universal Binaries of their other applications, isn't it simply a recompile for PPC? Or is all about the optimizations for the hardware? :confused:
 
I know this kinda stuff was going to happen but not so quick. I know that intel is the future for macs but adobe making an intel only app right now seems ridiculous to me.

The G5 is still a viable chip, as is the G4. Now maybe this new app needs some grunt behind it but i don't see why a G5 could not run it.

What adobe should be focuding on right now is getting the CS programs out in UB and not all these new ones (soundbooth, lightroom, etc.). I thiink if they focus more on what needed to be done instead of these side things then the CS programs would be out by now.
 
Honestly, I think a lot of his response is BS.

Unless they are doing a lot of performance tuning directly for Intel, and so they want to avoid using Accelerate.framework (which can't take advantage of all of Intel's features because it also has to translate to PPC, so it only focuses on what instructions the two platforms share), they really aren't gaining any kind of "streamlined" development by avoiding using Apple's Universal Binary guidelines.

illegalprelude said:
yea...last time I checked dual core and quad Core G5's were still beasts :confused: ...thanks Adobe?
Click to expand...

I know my Quad is!
 
Squonk said:
It makes sense for new applications of this magnitude to be Intel only, I suppose. But what tools are they using to build this? If they can make Universal Binaries of their other applications, isn't it simply a recompile for PPC? Or is all about the optimizations for the hardware? :confused:
Click to expand...

It's not going to be that simple, because Xcode can't build Windows applications. Adobe will have partitioned out the project so that as much code as possible will compile nicely under two separate environments.
 
isn't it all just down to sales / profits?

i mean, supporting an EoL product (come on, let's face it, PPC is) is only going to make you so much - maybe not enough to consider developing for it, especially if it's a programme which needs hardware addressing and therefore could have complications over compiling something like Firefox.

i'm glad they confirmed that existing products will have PPC support for a time - i'm a PPC user. but let's face it, it's going to die in the end.

but as they say, it'll be like classic / 68k. they'll be around for a few years and manage fine for stuff like photoshop, final cut studio and the like.
 
I heard Soundbooth is based on a Windows-Program Adobe aquired, a peace of software with heavily optimized x86-code. If this is true, it would need huge efforts to create a universal binary, not just a click in Xcodes compiler options.
 
bigandy said:
i mean, supporting an EoL product (come on, let's face it, PPC is) is only going to make you so much - maybe not enough to consider developing for it, especially if it's a programme which needs hardware addressing and therefore could have complications over compiling something like Firefox.
Click to expand...
Yep, a PowerPC version would be an investment into a product where the installed base will now be shrinking. That kind of platform will still appeal to smaller developers, but not to the behemoths who live and die by volume sales.
 
Fiveos22 said:
So Adobe is helping Apple push the transition to Intel chips. This is a positive thing, no?
Click to expand...
If they want to push the Intel transition, they should get CS3 on the street. That's what a lot of people are waiting for.

Soundbooth? meh....
 
Don't work "fast" work the "best rate".

prostuff1 said:
What adobe should be focuding on right now is getting the CS programs out in UB and not all these new ones (soundbooth, lightroom, etc.).....
Click to expand...

There is a classic book titled "The Mythical Man Month". It should be required reading for everyone who develops software for a living. (It actually is required in some places) I think it came out in the mid 1970's. Here is a the ultra-condenced summary of the entire book; "It you add to many people to a software project you actualy slow it down"

Let's all hope Adobe does NOT put the whole company on the CS3 project and instead asigns the "correct" number of people to the project. There is an optimum number of people and an optimum amount of time. Having either to few or to many resources working on any software project will only serve to delay it.
 
macenforcer said:
And so the PPC macs being obsolete begins. Glad I ditched mine and went intel.
Click to expand...

It begins the process but I would not say they are obsolete at all. Until CS3 is here and After Effects 8, PPC on the Mac will be still very strong.
I would say that by end of 2007 these machines will start the process of becoming obsolete.

I will be replacing mine when the Octo-core :eek: comes in.
 
Interestingly enough Soundbooth has some universal frameworks in it in according to a post here:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/461009861831

So somewhat of a sloppy job, that could easily be universal.

------------------

Adobe's audio dev team has ALWAYS been hostile toward apple. Just take a look at their Audition feedback forum with posts asking for Adobe Audition for Mac, and, well, the developers basical reply saying, "no way in hell. Who uses a Mac?"

I've tried to post on there saying that most of the professional audio world uses studios centered around the powermac, but they just reply with a 'get lost' sort of comment.
 
longofest said:
... 43% of the respondents are or would be interested in SoundBooth if the app was Universal....
Click to expand...


Customer polls are not as usfull as you'd think. Two polls I can think of. One was by HP and they found the #1 most requested printer feature was that the input try should hold a full ream of paper so you don't have to deal with opened packages of paper laying around. But then they come back with such a printer people don't buy them. The full ream paper handling system makes the printer MUCH more expensice, larger and weigh more.. I was at a talk by an exec from Meade (an optical company that makes telescopes) who said the same thing. I remember the quote: "If we built our equipment the way our customers asked us to then no one would buy it because they couldn't afford to."

I think there is some of this going n here. What if they designed this so it could run on a G5. Then they'd have to strip out some functions and it would not be much bette then other sound editor currently on the market. But if you set the "minimum system requirements" to by at lease a Core 2 Dual with 1GB RAM then they can add some more features
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back