Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Businesses Apple

Adobe Universal Binaries... in 2007 209

Posted by CmdrTaco from the don't-hold-your-breath dept.
bo peterberg writes "According to a pdf on Adobe's website, they remain committed to supporting Intel-based Macs. However, Intel-based Macs will not be supported until the next upgrade of all creative products. The current version will not be re-released."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Universal Binaries... in 2007 More

Adobe Universal Binaries... in 2007

Comments Filter:

  • Go Aperture! (Score:3, Funny)

    by adavies42 ( 746183 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:17PM (#14629159)
    So much for LightTable destroying Aperture!

    • Re:Go Aperture! (Score:5, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:27PM (#14629280)

      So much for LightTable destroying Aperture!

      Actually, LightTable is the exception. They announced they will have a beta of it available shortly. Now if only Apple would release a competitor to Photoshop, Illustrator, and Framemaker maybe they'd come out with new versions of those products as well.

      • It would be unwise for Apple to release a photoshop competitor. Look what happened to the Mac version of Premier when Apple released Final Cut Pro...

        • Re:Go Aperture! (Score:5, Funny)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @05:07PM (#14629728)

          It would be unwise for Apple to release a photoshop competitor. Look what happened to the Mac version of Premier when Apple released Final Cut Pro...

          You mean when Adobe killed it and most of the users migrated to Final Cut Pro, making Apple a lot of money?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)

              by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 )
              Good point. Personally, I'd love to see anyone, whether it's Apple or somebody else, bring out an image editing program that uses CoreImage to its full potential. Photoshop is a relic, running in Adobe's home-grown Mac OS 7 compatibility environment. They can't even handle a floating-point frame buffer yet.

              No kidding. Its only now that Adobe is even getting their shit together enough to port their codebases to Xcode. If they had done this earlier, they would not have so much work ahead of them. (To be fa

              • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

                by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:18PM (#14631560)
                Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by bursch-X ( 458146 )
                  That's why I'd shell out full-bloat-rip-me-off-and-sodomize-me just-as-adobe-does-prices for a full-blown Cocoa and Mac only Photoshop killer app. I REALLY WOULD!

                  It's such a shame that the TIFFany3 developers never did anything with that application. The GUI was fubar, with some work on that app it could have left Photoshop dead in the water, but then again, it's them we have to thank for QuartzExtreme and CoreImage, so maybe it was a good thing after all that they got bought out by Apple.

          • Not just Premiere (Score:5, Interesting)

            by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @08:53PM (#14631445)
            You mean when Adobe killed it and most of the users migrated to Final Cut Pro, making Apple a lot of money?

            That's not quite what happened...

            Premiere was not discontinued for Mac until well after Final Cut's launch. Apple basically stole the entire market from them. When sales fell through the floor, Adobe discontinued the Mac version of Premiere, and also announced that basically all of their software should be run on PCs for best results, a historical first. This was essentially the beginnings of the major Apple/Adobe rivalry. (They were really pissed about iPhoto as well.)

            It doesn't get mentioned a lot around here, but Premiere was hardly the only Apple casualty in that space; they have virtually eaten the nonlinear editing space in a very short span of time. Remember Avid? They are still around but not nearly the force they once were, a name pretty much synonymous with high end / cinema nonlinear editing. Media 100 also. Final Cut is a juggernaut, a totally killer app. And Apple has Final Cut Express to compete with as well. And then they picked up Shake and RAYZ and a few others to eat a piece of what SGI used to totally dominate.

            The really funny part is, Final Cut started its life (as I know the story) at Adobe, as a radical new verison of Premiere after v4. Premiere 4 was super popular, but people who know it and used it will all tell you that v5 sucked big time. The reason for this is, the Premiere team had this great new interface but Adobe didn't want to deviate so radically from the old Premiere look and feel. In frustration a large number of them quit and went over to Macromedia, who started developing their own editing app called Final Cut. It evolved for a bit there, but Macromedia got cold feet and had a sort of had a truce with Adobe at the time, so they sold the unreleased codebase... to Apple.

            (This is hearsay I received from a high mucketymuck at Adobe who was bombed on Bailey's at the time, so take as you will.)

    • So much for LightTable destroying Aperture!

      Actually, Lightroom is expected to be Universal much sooner, as it is written largely in Lua [gusmueller.com], with the rest in Cocoa. Quite unlike the rest of Adobe's stuff.

      • Re:Go Aperture! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by n8_f ( 85799 )
        Exactly. The real reason they aren't switching over CS 2 is because they can't. They've been using CodeWarrior forever and they would probably still be putting off moving away from it if it wasn't for the fact that they have to in order to support Universal Binaries. It'll take them to 2007 just getting it to build correctly.
        • Even if that weren't the case, Adobe has no real financial incentive to do a rewrite of the current apps. From Adobe's point of view, it's much better to develop the next version and then satisfying all that pent up demand. For those that need to run PS (or whatever) NOW, Apple is still selling perfectly capable and speedy G5s (including a quad G5).

          I bought a G4 powerbook late last year, knowing there would be Intel powerbooks sometime this year. I don't mind waiting a rev. or two or even three, at which po
          • Adobe has no real financial incentive to do a rewrite of the current apps. From Adobe's point of view

            Let's friggin hope Apple or another hardcore Cocoa developer is going to give them hell with a CoreImage enabled OS X only glory graphics editor. Now would be the best time to come up with something, because on Intel Macs Adobe's got nothing to counter them for another friggin year!

            Got your financial incentive right here buddy!
    • Makes sense to me. Photoshop is one of those programs Apple uses to show how much better the G5 was then the P4 and Athlon, so it must use a lot of optimized code with Altivec and stuff. If it were simple stuff, they could pretty much just recompile it, but now they will have to port the Windows version, which is optimized for SSE over to the Mac.

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Racher ( 34432 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:17PM (#14629165)
    ... Quark Inc. has announced the will create a universal binary of their flagship product QuarkXpress sometime before in 2070.

    • Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)

      by sgant ( 178166 )
      Not sure if you're trying to be funny or what, but in case you didn't already hear, Steve Jobs singled out Quark in his keynote as already having a Universal Binary for QuarkXPress.

      Yeah, I was shocked as well.
      • I didn't watch the keynote, but let me say.

        HOLY SH!T!
      • Wow, I guess some companies really do learn :) I guess this tells us that Adobe thinks indesign won on merit, not Quark's refusal to port to OSX... Hehehehe.
      • >Not sure if you're trying to be funny or what, but in case you
        >didn't already hear, Steve Jobs singled out Quark in his keynote as
        >already having a Universal Binary for QuarkXPress.

        If your app is 100% cocoa, then producing an Intel binary is as simple as a recompile. If your app is a crappy port from the Windows version with lots of carbon legacy code, then you will have a lot of rewriting to do.

        jfs

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by lawnboy5-O ( 772026 )
          well the fact that Adobe apps are not cocoa is significant then... XPress is already compiled with xCode; universal binary public will be posted in couple of weeks... light years ahead of Adobe product...
        • this is totally inaccurate... you know you can inline assembly and plain C code in Objective-C, right? likewise, Finder, a Carbon app, has been building on Intel as part of the Marklar project for some time..

  • Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sgant ( 178166 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:19PM (#14629191) Homepage Journal
    This is kind of a deal breaker for me, as I make my living using Photoshop to a VERY large degree. Using it with Rosetta may be "passable"...it's just not going to cut it in the long run. I was hoping that Adobe would have an upgrade for existing customers, but I guess not.

    Though they may change their minds, who knows. So much for upgrading this year. I suppose this will work out better in the end, as the Intel Macs will get a chance to mature a little more.
    • Using it with Rosetta may be "passable"...it's just not going to cut it in the long run.

      My wife has an iMac, but we don't follow the details that closely. Have you actually seen Photoshop under emulation, or are you just speculating that it will be unusable for you? You may be 100% correct, but I don't know enough about it to make the call.

    • Nuts. A big 'me too' on this one. I've kicked around the idea of a mac since the minimac came out, but was waiting for the shift to x86 before I made the plunge. Recently got a chance to use a g4 for a few months due to work, and my wife had a chance to get a feel for the OS. Seems fine, got the blessing to move forward.

      For my bride's computer, the only real thing that matters is her Adobe CS2 suite. I talked to Adobe about the time I upgraded to CS2, and they would (more or less) let you change from Wi

    • Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ChrisKnight ( 16039 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @05:47PM (#14630137) Homepage
      Even after I knew the Intel Macs were coming, I chose to invest in a Dual-Processor Dual-Core G5. Why throw money at the platform that is guaranteed to be phased out?

      I worked through the transition from 680x0 to PowerPC. I worked through the transition of OS 9 to OS X. These transitions are NEVER easy. I chose to get the most power I could out of the platform that currently works best. I'll wait to get an Intel Mac until they are well into year two of general use, and only after my must-have applications have had at least one set of bug fixes released to their Universal Binary versions. :)

      -Chris

  • I was afraid of this.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SleepyHappyDoc ( 813919 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:19PM (#14629197)
    How many companies are going to use the Intel transition to force paid upgrades? I can see some companies offering a 'special deal', pay $X for the universal binary edition, so it'll actually run on your new computer. Sort of a variation on the DVD re-release double-dip, except with a gun to the (figurative) head. (and no, I know they don't force you to buy their software, but if you're a graphics artist in a Mac only shop, your IT department will have to buy you Photoshop for Intel Mac, whenever your machine gets upgraded).

    Looks like windfall time for Mac software vendors.
    • Actually, they won't have to re-buy you Photoshop for Intel Mac. Rosetta allows the old version to work, at least in theory, with caveats.

      They admit it'll run slower, but they don't provide numbers, so I'll be curious to see if it's gun-to-the-head-must-upgrade slower, or just "hey, this isn't quite as snappy as it used to be" slower. The caveat is that Version Cue Workspace Server doesn't work at all. I wonder if they can patch that.

      It's still a windfall for Mac software vendors.
      • A Slashdot story posted earlier had some benchmark numbers comparing Photoshop on the Intel iMac to a G5 model. IIRC they were surprisingly "acceptable". Some operations took a very long time - such as resizing I think was one - but overall I think you could live with it. Drawing from this, I'd imagine a MacBook Pro wouldn't do very badly compared to a PowerBook G4.
        • Especially if one were upgrading from a TiBook or early AlBook.
          • Exactly I've got an AlBook 17" 1.0GHz and I'm used to its speed. I think it's acceptable. Now I guess the new MacBook Pro will--even with Rosetta used for some apps--be a bit zippier, even with Photoshop running under Rosetta. Why? It's double the clockspeed PLUS a dual core. Even if Rosetta would run at 1/3 of native speed it would still be zippier than what I have now.
    • "but if you're a graphics artist in a Mac only shop, your IT department will have to buy you Photoshop for Intel Mac, whenever your machine gets upgraded"

      It's funny. I work in a printshop, and we have to upgrade the minute something new comes out anyway, since someone out there always has the newest version. Our main production machines have CS, CS2, AI8/10, PS6/7, PM6/7, InD2, and QXP4/6 all installed at the same time. Just sayin'.
    • Dear Apple,

      You have till june to light a fire under adobe, or I won't be buying your $5000 laptop.

      Sincerely,
      g-funk.
    • Just what do you think Apple is doing?

      By going Intel they almost guarantee that a lot of their users will feel compelled to upgrade. While in the laptop range the upgrade issue can almost be moot, those with desktops may feel less pressure now but companies may end up forcing the issue on them by not having non-universal editions in the future.

      This change does Apple very well, at the expense of many of their users. Hopefully they will be able garner new users as well. If it were easier to run *nix/Window
    • If you worked in software developement you'd probably be a bit more understanding. A) Adobe has to convert all their code to xcode and B) all their products would then have to go through a full QA cycle (this is no small task). By the time thats done the next version will be out anyhow. Why not convert all the code to xcode, put all the new features in and do the QA for these products and release - thats a much smoother product cycle.

      It really is a case of either develope new versions which will be universa

  • 64 bit? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:20PM (#14629203)
    The first IntelMacs use 32 bit CPUs, but Intel will release 64 bit version of the CPU later this year. Will these first IntelMacs be obsoleted? OS X for the Intel CPUs will obviously go to 64 bit --- need it for the PowerMacs as their power users won't want to lower memory capacity. Maybe Adobe and other third party software vendors see this situation and prefer to just wait and do only 64 bit Intel native binaries?
    • Unless intel and/or apple deviate dramatically from the existing methods for supporting 32 bit binaries on a 64 bit system, the only thing that will happen to your 32 bit intel/mac binaries is that they'll run a little slower than the 64 bit ones, on the same system, and they may even run faster on the new system than they do on the current one - if intel can get their shit together to the same degree as AMD, that is.
    • The first IntelMacs use 32 bit CPUs, but Intel will release 64 bit version of the CPU later this year. Will these first IntelMacs be obsoleted? OS X for the Intel CPUs will obviously go to 64 bit --- need it for the PowerMacs as their power users won't want to lower memory capacity. Maybe Adobe and other third party software vendors see this situation and prefer to just wait and do only 64 bit Intel native binaries?

      Short answer: not really.

      Slightly longer: even G3 class chips still do pretty well under

  • No Surprises Here! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macentric ( 914166 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:21PM (#14629217)
    There are no real surprises here. This is very similar to how they transitioned Photoshop and Illustrator to Mac OS X several years ago. My main hopes are that CS3 is not living half in two worlds like they did with Illustrator 10 and Photoshop 7.

    On the bright side, if Adobe keeps up the status quo on Creative Suite 3 then we will see all of the Apps that ship in Creative Suite, ship together. Acrobat 5 was horrible on Mac OS X, the Acrobat application ran natively in OS X, but the distiller ran in Classic and suffered severe performance penalties as a result. Hopefully all of the apps tranistioning around the same time will leave a better taste in their customers mouths.

    I am glad to see them attempting to show off their xCode developemtn prowess by delivering the LightRoom beta earlier than their other software packages.

  • Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gun (Score:3, Insightful)

    by httpamphibio.us ( 579491 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:48PM (#14629524)
    Adobe isn't updating until 2007, we can probably assume the same for the Macromedia apps. Native Instruments (Reaktor, Absynth, Kontakt) is going to be rolling out products starting at the end of Q2 2006 to Q1 2007. Cycling '74 (Max/MSP, pluggo, Jitter) is estimating "the end of 2006" but they haven't even come close to meeting a deadline in many years, so that'll probably be mid-2007. Steinberg (Cubase) has said they'll update "sometime" in 2006.

    So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? The swarms of iPod owners that own Apple products for reasons of fashion more than functionality? It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.

    But they sorta had to release the Intel products so soon, though didn't they? All the hardcore Apple guys I knew said they wouldn't be buying any new stuff until the transition to Intel. Oh well...
    • It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.

      Except the Apple Pro applications (Final Cut, DVD Studio, Motion, Logic, Shake, Soundtrack etc. They are going to be released as Universal in Feb / March [apple.com]

    • So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? The swarms of iPod owners that own Apple products for reasons of fashion more than functionality? It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.

      You seem to be extrapolating Adobe products as being the only things anyone uses.

      Other people have mentioned the other Pro apps that will be universal in March. But one app that will help a specific group of professional users is Aperture.
    • I've been considering the upgrade to the new Intel Macs since they were released. I've been paying special attention to the software/hardware issues, particularly for the line you happened to mention (Macromedia/Adobe, Native Instruments, Cubase, Reason, etc.) because, naturally, I'd like to have the Universal Binary versions. At first, I also thought that the release was premature, but I think they may have coincided the release with the tax season, ie. refund time. When my refund comes in, I intend to put

    • So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? ...It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.

      You mean somebody still believes the hype that Apple users are mostly graphic artists these days? I know a lot of people including a few who are artists that use macs. Most mac users I know, however, are programmers and scientists. Another large number are non-power users who basically use the Web, e-mail, and some word processing

    • So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? The swarms of iPod owners that own Apple products for reasons of fashion more than functionality? It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.

      Well, i'm buying one for one.

      Why?

      Because it's a computer i can use at home for "home use" type stuff without worrying about dealing with the shit you have to deal with running windows.

      Plus, it's just plain nice to sit on a desk by i

    • Crap. Max is being talked about in the same breath as Reaktor and Kontakt and Macromedia. I need to switch to something more advanced. This is embarrassing.
  • What Would Macromedia Have Done?

    You really have to wonder whether they would've decided to update their apps sooner. Though given that Intel Macs for developers have been available for at least 6 months, maybe they weren't far enough along on the transition at the time of the merger.

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by HellYeahAutomaton ( 815542 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @04:54PM (#14629576)
    So they're covering up their move to Java? :)
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Is it "about time" Apple transitioned to Intel... in mid 2005 at WWDC?

    or will 2007 be "about time" when we'll see some Adobe products written to take advantage of the computers YOU SNARKLY demanded from Jobs with your little jab at him at WWDC last year?

    I was ready to understand the difficulty in the undertaking - but you guys were first to Mac OS X, and now, you're going to be stupid late to Intel, despite your grumblings that Apple wasn't there all along... and i was even ready to forget that we saw Wolfr
  • I scanned through the document, and the only thing they said was the it'll be in the next major release, and that they typically do releases every 18-24 months. So, if CS2 came out in April or May of 2005, the next version could be out anytime between this November and next May.

    Of course, that's only their "typical" release schedule. If there are other factors in play (like, for example, new Pro Macs being released), they might very well do an atypical release schedule for CS3.

  • This isn't too surprising. Don't forget that they outright dropped FrameMaker for Mac.

    This was after they claimed that the market for it had shrunk. This was after they had released a non OS X native version about a year after the release of OS X. How many Mac users do you think were waiting for the OS X native version to upgrade?

    I think the only chance of us seeing a true OS X version of FrameMaker is if some other company out there comes out with something that's actually competitive with it...

  • Quit yer whining! (Score:5, Informative)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Thursday February 02, 2006 @06:43PM (#14630595) Homepage Journal
    1. Apple has ALWAYS made it clear their move to Intel would be in stages.
    2. Apple has ALWAYS said it would be done from their lower-end products to their upper-end.
    3. The iMac is Apple's entry-level product.
    4. Therefore the iMac being iNtelicized first is in line with Apple's announced plans.
    5. With the iMac being Apple's entry-level consumer product it doesn't have a large professional user base.
    6. Therefore professionals, who have large investments in hardware and software, are unlikely to be affected by the Intel transition until it reaches the products they use: The Professional-level Macs like the G5 line.
    7. So Adobe not shipping Universal Binary products for their professional level until the professional grade hardware is ready is surprising to who?
    Seriously, if you're appalled that Adobe et al aren't shipping Universal Binaries right away only means you haven't been paying attention. If you really are a professional photographer or someone who honestly depends on these type products you'd have to have been comatose the past year not to be well aware of all of this.

    Instead what I hear are a buncha wannebe-geeks who went out 'n bought the newest and shiniest and are now whining because they chose to ignore what anyone with half a clue woulda and most likely did tell 'em. You shelled out over a grand for a new product and couldn't be bothered to find out if the software you want to run on it actually would anytime soon.

    Get the hell off /., I'm sure there's some support chat group out there for you on AOL somewhere. Try keyword "12:00-Flasher"

    Frankly I just hope there is someone out there clubbing you monkeys over the head with instructions on how to use a contraceptive.

  • Intel Transition Tougher Than Most May Realize (Score:5, Interesting)

    by krisamico ( 452786 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @07:17PM (#14630787)
    I work on plugins for Adobe's applications occasionally, and let me say that the [apparent] "maybe in 2007" statement from Adobe is not a big surprise to me. The applications in their creative suite and plugin software development kits rely on CodeWarrior, which is [effectively] a dead product. AFAIK, it could never support development of universal binaries, and I would speculate that they have known this for a while.

    Adobe's plugin Software Development Kits (SDKs) are based on C++ object models, which will mean that plugins and their host applications will need to be built with the same tools for everything to work. To move on, I think Adobe is going to have to move all their products and SDKs to XCode (gcc), and though I do not work for Adobe, I would wager that it will be a fairly tough job. IMO, Q2 or Q3 2007 seems a fairly realistic goal.

    The problems the Intel transition will pose for both Adobe and the third-party plugin developers will be daunting. Quark and its associates have similar troubles, but I have personally seen some decent progress on the Quark side, though I think NDA prevents me from saying anything specific. Though I have seen little progress from Adobe as yet, I am confident they will deliver.

    Adobe has a lot of work ahead of them, so I would encourage users of Adobe's creative apps to be patient, and realize how much work Adobe has ahead of them and that it involves more than just moving the applications to Intel. SDKs often offer as many if not more challenges than their host applications. I will part with a criticism: Everybody has known that CodeWarrior is dead for a long time. I think Adobe should have started putting more resources into jumping ship right when the writing went on the wall. Now we are all going to have to wait a while because Adobe was so shiftless about getting off the dead branch.

    • Unless I'm mistaken it has nothing to do with a "C++ object model" which obviously would work fine under XCode. Rather it has to do with using the old CFM stuff which was depreciated and dropped quite a long time ago by Apple. XCode won't even build them and they aren't supported with native Intel code. So they need a new plug in model which will require all new plug-ins. A boon, I suppose, for some developers, but definitely a hassle for end users. And probably the greatest weakness and danger for App
      • The above reply seems to confuse the issues of ABI (which is what I was talking about) and code container format (which your reply seemed to be talking about). When C++ is used for loadable code libraries, getting your tools and interfaces set up right is a little more tricky. Changing the capabilities of the SDK without breaking compatibility is even more tricky. Where I was going to go was that with Objective-C, you do not have the same problem, but I didn't even start because Adobe probably can't do that
  • It may not be the ideal solution, but this would be a great opportunity for Codeweavers [codeweavers.com] to make a bundle selling a port of Crossover Office [codeweavers.com] to OS X/Intel. You could then run the Windows version of Photoshop at full speed.

    Does Adobe allow you to migrate your Photoshop license from Windows to Mac?

    • That's no solution. I don't know how far the colour correction system could even hook into Apples ColorSync etc. So you'd be editing images with the colours completely off. Also, there is a reason people use Photoshop on a Mac and not on Windows.

      I'd rather wait for a new version than using a windows-ish version of Photoshop. The GUIs too fucked up for me to even consider bothering with it.
  • I've used test builds of MacGIMP [macgimp.org] working on MacOSX for Intel. Works perfectly. If there was ever a time to eat Adobe's lunch with an open source alternative, this is it.
    • I'm pretty sure Gimp.app [sourceforge.net] is now a universal binary, and has been so for a while - it's packaged as a self-contained .app which you can drag straight into your Applications folder.

      Oh, and it's completely free. No dubious paid downloads costing $29.95 or anything.
    • Show me a GIMP plugin that can convert your output into something that will look the same on as it does on screen and you might see graphic artists (the kind who do things like catalogs, advertisments and so on and who are one of the big customer groups for Photoshop) switch.
      • Fuck X11 on OS X, it just doesn't cut it. I can't even input Japanese. So much for using the GIMP for anything here (I happen to live in Tokyo).
  • If they rebuild it, people will repurchase it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close